METHODIST UNION, 



THREATENED IN 1844, 

WAS 

FORMALLY DISSOLVED IN 1848 



By the Legislation of Dr. (Afterward Bishop) Simpson in the 
Northern General Conference of 1848, Whereby the 
Reunion of Episcopal Methodism Was Ren- 
dered Forever Impossible. 



But the legislation 0/1848 having been annulled by 
the Highest Courts of t lie United States, and the Plan of Separation 
vindicated by the Supreme Law of the La?id, 
the way may be opened to consider 

A MORE EXCELLENT PLAN, 




BY W. P. HARRISON, D.D., LL.D,, 

Book Editor M. E, Church, South, 



Nashville, Tenn.: 
Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Barbee & Smith, Agents. 
1892, 





PREFACE. 



The greater part of the matter -contained in the following 
pages appeared in the Quarterly Review, under the caption: 
" Bishop Simpson as a Politician." The publication in book 
form has been called for by so many persons from every quar- 
ter of the Church that the author does not feel at liberty to 
deny the request. 

In addition to the three articles published in the Review, several 
chapters have been included in this volume, as necessary to the 
adequate presentation of the case. To the Church, South, and 
to all fair-minded people who may be interested in this discus- 
sion, these pages are committed by The Author. 



Copyright, 1892. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

A Grave Charge— Mr. Calhoun Following Methodist Lead- 
ers — Fallacy of the Statement — The Constitution Pro- 
tected African Slavery — Missouri Compromise — A Con- 
ciliatory Spirit — No Connection between the Division of 
1844 and the War of 1S61 — Causes of the Separation in 
1844 — Bishop Andrew — Bishop Simpson votes for Divi- 
sion — Some Ancient History — Contrast between Massa- 
chusetts and Virginia — Admission of Louisiana a Cause 
of Trouble — Nullification in Massachusetts — Patriotism 
at a Discount in New England — The Clerical Politicians 
of New England — Hartford Convention Originates Nul- 
lification — New England Sentiment 

CHAPTER II. 
Sincerity of the North in 1844 — Real Schism Threatened 
— Slur upon Dr. Winans — Bowen, of Georgia, non est — 
Bishop Andrew Explains His Position — Resolution 
Passed by the General Conference — Bishop Simpson 
Votes to Condemn Andrew— Declaration of Southern 
Delegates — Dr. Charles Elliott Moves a Committee of 
Nine — Dr. McFerrin's Motion — Committee Reports — 
Bishop Simpson Approves the Report — Votes for Sepa- 
ration — Five Northern and Four Southern Men on the 
Committee — Every Member but One Votes for the Plan 
of Separation — Sudden Change — The Plan of Separation 
Becomes a Plan for Secession! 

CHAPTER. III.. 
New England Leads the General Conference — Bishop An- 
drew Not Allowed to Preside in New England — Mr. Wes- 
ley's Testimony on One Subject Applied to Another — 
John Street Church. New York, a Slaveholder — Mr. 

(3) 



4 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Whitefield — Increasing Agitation — Antecedents of the 
Puritans — First Slave-ship Built in New England — First 
Speculators in Human Flesh — An Entire Colony in the 
Slave-trade — Cheapness of Slave Labor — Eliot Remon- 
strates — Indian Captives Sold as Slaves and Shipped 
Abroad — Barbarous Treatment of Slaves in New England 
— Legal Status of Slavery in Massachusetts — First Law 
Recognizing Slavery — Virginia Abolishes the Slave- 
trade before Massachusetts — First Argument Against 
the Slave-trade — Petition of the Negroes in Massachu- 
setts Disregarded 

CHAPTER IV. 
No Free State in 1790 — Tinkering with the Census — Hu- 
miliating Statement — Disappearance of the Negroes — 
Advertisements of Slaves for Sale in Boston — Sources of 
New England Ideas — Slavery Never Abolished in Mas- 
sachusetts — Owners Discouraged from Manumission — 
Pitiful Spectacle — Massachusetts and South Carolina 
Contrasted — Negroes Not Allowed to Exercise Useful 
Trades in Massachusetts in 1844 — Negroes Banished from 
Massachusetts — Notice to Leave — Repeal of the Ban- 
ishment Act — Agitation Begun — Bishop Emory — Agita- 
tion in Congress — Votes in the House of Representa- 
tives — Party Lines Foreshadowed — Morality of the Abo- 
lition Movement — Anecdote of the Elder Adams — Status 
of the Negro in Massachusetts in 1844 — Dr. Simpson's 
State Petitions for African Slavery — Petition Denied and 
Renewed — John Randolph's Advice — Indiana Petition 
Again — Did Dr. Simpson Know These Things? — An El- 
oquent Bishop's Opportunity — Points Proved 

CHAPTER V. 
A Popular Error — No Connection between the Division in 
1844 and the Civil War — Separation Tended to Allay Ex- 
citement — The South Sends a Fraternal Messenger — 
Rejected by the North — Struggle of 1861 Inevitable from 
the Beginning — Two Theories of Government: One Pa- 
ternal, Monarchical, without Checks upon Legislation; 
the Other Republican, Limited by Constitutional Guards 



CONTENTS. 



— Mr. Jefferson Defines the Principles of the Two Parties 
in 1798— Rules for Interpretation of the Federal Com- 
pact—Liberty of the Citizen— Mr. Jefferson's Political 
Creed — Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, How Orig- 
inated—French Arrogance and British Injustice— Alien 
and Sedition Laws— Liberty of the Person and of the 
Press Involved— Votes on the Two Bills— The South 
Against, New England in Favor of These Laws— Clear 
Demarkation of Party and Sectional Lines— Text of the 
Virginia Resolutions— Kentucky Resolutions, Written 
by Mr. Jefferson— Forwarded to the States— Replies 

CHAPTER VI. 
Mr. Madison's Defense— " General Welfare" Clause an 
Open Door for Every Species of Legislation — Steam-en- 
gine and Industrial Revolution — Internal Improvements 
— Manufactures — New England Ceases to Be Commer- 
cial and Becomes Manufacturing — African Slavery Be- 
comes a Serious Menace — Constitution Protected the 
Institution — Confessed to Be an Evil — Abolition Move- 
ments Coincident with New England's Defeat — Tempo- 
rizing Influence — Infant Industries — Free Soilism — Dis- 
union Orators and Their Sayings — Higher Law than the 
Constitution — The South Exasperated — The Disunion of 
the Church a Blessing — The South Conservative — New 
England Radical — Increased Territory Subsequent to 
1844 — New Occasions for Strife — Pressure upon the 
Conservative Men of 1844 — Dr. Elliott Favors Separation 
in 1844, Calls it " Secession " in 1848 — Beecher, Quincy, 
Phillips, and Others — Disunionism in New England — 
Agitation Increasing — Fears of the Torch and Dagger — 
Friendship for the Slave, Enmity to the Free Negro — 
Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon — Negroes Banished from 
Illinois — Conclusions Drawn by the South — The Sixth 
Restrictive Rule — Failure of the Argument Based upon 
It — Triumph of Federalism 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Case of Canada — No Precedents Needed, but a Clear 
Case of " Dissolving the Union " — Memorials and Peti- 



6 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

Page 

tions from Canada — Constitutional Difficulties in the 
Way — No Vote on the Constitutional Question — Resolu- 
tions Giving Canada an Independent Church — Another 
Committee — Breakers Ahead — Division of Property in 
the Way — Dr. Fisk's Report Adopted — Property Ques- 
tion Ignored — -Again before the Conference of 1832 — 
A Plan of Settlement — Failure of the Plan — Remarkable 
Mode of Settlement — Doing in One Way What Was 
Refused in Another — Furnishing Capital without Cost — 
Same Principle Involved as Before — Curious Method of 
Buying Sunday-school Books — Power to Donate Prop- 
erty — Dr. Bangs Makes a Distinction without a Differ- 
ence — All Church Organizations Voluntary — No Indis- 
soluble Church Union — Church and State Idea — Other 
Churches — Abolitionism Condemned in 1836 — Confer- 
ence Careful to Put Itself Right — Action in 1840 — 
Changes in 1844 — Testimony of Distinguished Lawyers 
• — Emancipation Impossible — Facts of Bishop Andrew's 
Case — Minister and Bishop Suspended for Not Doing 
Illegal Acts 162 

CHAPTER VIIL 

Bishop Soule Laments the Absence of Forethought — 
Charge of Secession an After-thought — Report of Com- 
mittee on Organization at Louisville — Ruin to Southern 
Methodism Prevented — Conservative Influence of the 
Southern Church — Majority of 1844 Recognize the 
" Plan of Separation " as a Finality — Bishops Recognize 
the Division of the Church — Council of July, 1845 — 
Bishop Morris Refuses to Aid Disruption — Declares the 
Contingency Transpired — Will Not Undertake a Course 
of Nullification — Leaves That to Editors— Bishops Know 
Their Duty Better—" Plan of Separation " Not to Be 
Voted Upon by the Annual Conferences — Only the Al- 
teration of Sixth Restrictive Rule Submitted to Vote — 
Bishop Morris Present at Louisville in 1845 — Opportuni- 
ties to Know Southern Feeling and Sentiment 180 

CHAPTER IX. 
General Conference of 1848 — No Southern Delegate Pres- 



CONTENTS. 7 

Page 

ent — Baltimore the " Breakwater r Conference — Bound- 
ary Lines — Division of the Church Acknowledged — Dr. 
Pierce Present — His Letter to the Conference — Various 
Methods of Preparing to Reject Him— The Final Method 
— Ungenerous Treatment- — Painful Exhibition of Party 
Feeling — No Fraternity with the South — Extraordinary 
Act — Pretended Infractions of the " Plan of Separation " 
— Excuses for Repudiation — Treatment of Bishop Soule 
— His Letter to the Conference — His Presence at Pitts- 
burg Ignored , 189 

CHAPTER X. 
General Conference of 1848 a Remarkable Body — Deter- 
mined to Repudiate the Work of 1844 — Only Doubtful of 
the Means to Secure the End — Position of the South Not 
Understood — A Hopeless Case — Southern Delegates Did 
Not Refer the Plan of Separation to the Annual Con- 
ferences — Only the Change in Restrictive Rule Thus 
Referred — Assertion Without Proof — A Bold Statement 
— Two Statements by the Conference — Both Cannot Be 
True — Avoiding a Vote on the Reference — The Question 
of Dividing the Book Concern the Only Question Re- 
ferred to the Vote of the Annual Conferences — Vote 
on the Restrictive Rule Divided the Property — Refusal 
to Divide the Property Did Not Annul the Plan for Di- 
viding the Church — An Affirmative Vote Gave the South 
Her Share — A Negative Vote Denied the South Her 
Share— This Was the Only Effect of the Annual Con- 
ference Vote — South Made to Condition Church Organi- 
zation upon Dividing the Property — False Position Be- 
coming a Calumny — South Compelled to Sue in Order 
to Retain Her Own Possessions — Obscurity in the Re- 
turns of the Actual Vote — No Means of Ascertaining the 
Results Except Five Lines of a Report — No Records — 
Statement Contradicted — "Plan of Separation" Proves 
the Reference — Reasons for Repudiation — The Outcome 
Three Declarations — The Philosophy of Anarchy 207 



CHAPTER XI. 
Dr. Simpson's Substitute — First Section Contradicts the' 



8 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

Page 

" Plan of Separation " — Adopted — Deposition of Bishop 
Andrew Dissolved the Methodist Union — Absurdity of 
a Peace Offering — The South Only Needed One — The 
Border Did Not — Wisdom of This Generation — How to 
Hold the Border — Further Dependence — Second Sec- 
tion Adopted — Third Resolution Did Not Involve the 
Adoption of the Plan — Charge of Imbecility Against 
the Southern Delegates — Third Section Adopted — Was 
It an Intended Trap? — Fourth Section — Waiting for 
Ruin First, to Be Repaired Afterward — Action of Dele- 
gates after the Conference Adjourned — Objection to It 
a Pretext Only — Surprised Fanatics — Remembrances 
of 1844 — Section Five Adopted — Question of Fact Which 
Has Only Assertion for Proof— Section Six -Adopted — 
The Wolf Finds an Excuse for Eating the Lamb — 
Section Seven Adopted — Absolution Decree — A High 
Court for Annulling Compacts — Section Eight — Closing 
the Book of Pretexts — Kentucky Court of Appeals Up- 
sets Dr. Simpson's Logic — Melancholy Attitude of a 
General Conference — Final Settlement of the Property 
Question — Decree of the United States Circuit Court 
for Southern District of New York— Final Award of 
the Supreme Court of the United States— The South 
Receives Her Portion— Courage of Dr. Crooks 224 

CHAPTER XII. 
Statistics of the Churches 246 



CHAPTER XIII. 
The Future of Episcopal Methodism, 



253 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



CHAPTER I. 

A Grave Charge — Mr. Calhoun Following Methodist Leaders — 
Fallacy of the Statement — The Constitution Protected African 
Slavery — Missouri Compromise — A Conciliatory Spirit — No 
Connection between the Division of 1844 and the War of 1861 
— Causes of the Separation in 1844 — Bishop Andrew — Bishop 
Simpson votes for Division — Some Ancient History — Con- 
trast between Massachusetts and Virginia — Admission of 
Louisiana a Cause of Trouble — Nullification in Massachusetts 
— Patriotism at a Discount in New England — The Clerical 
Politicians of New England — Hartford Convention Originates 
Nullification — New England Sentiment. 

In a former notice of the " Life of Bishop Simp- 
son" we have confessed our admiration for his 
life and character as a minister of the gospel and 
an eloquent expounder of the sacred oracles. If 
we were to pass in silence the record of political 
life and action, as it is given by his biographer, 
our silence might be construed into the admission 
that the grave indictment brought by Dr. Crooks 
against Southern Methodism is true. We read 
these pages of Dr. Crooks with great sorrow. 
They confirm us in the belief that the present gen- 
eration of Northern Methodists are unable to state 
the issues of 1844 with common fairness. From 

(9) 



IO 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



many sources in the North we could expect noth- 
ing less than an ex -parte statement of the great 
struggle that ended in the division of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. From Dr. Crooks we expect- 
ed better things- How grievously we have been 
disappointed the following extract will show. 
Speaking of the General Conference of 1844, Dr. 
Crooks says: 

The events of this historic General Conference deserve to 
be dwelt upon from their connection with the event succeeding 
them: the struggle for the preservation of the national union. 
Thej had an important bearing, too, upon the life of Bishop 
Simpson; they formed a part of the preparatory training by 
which he w r as fitted for the service rendered by him to the 
country from 1861 to 1865. He was a witness of the first break- 
ing of the bonds of the national union; for the claim of the in- 
herent right of slavery to go anywhere in the Church, in the 
person of a slave-holding bishop, was followed by the claim of 
the right of slavery to go any where within the limits of the na- 
tion. Mr. Calhoun trod in the footsteps of the Southern Meth- 
odist leaders ; what they demanded for slave-holding for Meth- 
odists he demanded for slave-holding as an American. The 
schism in the Church not only preceded in time, but led on to the 
greater schism: the attempt to create two nations out of one. 
What wearied Bishop Simpson was to witness the preliminary 
rehearsal of the struggle from 1861 to 1865. ("Life of Bishop 
Simpson," p. 232.) 

We are at a loss to know what Dr. Crooks means 
by the statement that "Mr. Calhoun trod in the 
footsteps of the Southern Methodist leaders." Are 
we to understand that these leaders asserted the 
doctrine that a slave-holding bishop had the right 
to go, in the exercise of his functions, "anywhere 
in the Church," and that Mr. Calhoun asserted 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



II 



that slave-holders had the right to carry their prop- 
erty in slaves into any part of the United States? 
Surely Dr. Crooks must know that more than 
twenty years before the General Conference of 
1844, by a compact known as the Missouri Com- 
promise, slavery, or involuntary servitude, was for- 
ever forbidden north of the line of thirty-six de- 
grees, thirty minutes. It must be known to Dr. 
Crooks that the Missouri Compromise was the law 
of the land in 1844, an d continued to be so until 
several years after the death of Mr. Calhoun. It 
must be known to Dr. Crooks that the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise measure was caused by 
the agency of Stephen A. Douglas, a member of the 
United States Senate from Illinois. So far from 
accomplishing this repeal, many of the statesmen 
of the South saw in that action the opening of Pan- 
dora's box of evils and the hastening of that Civil 
War which had been threatened for more than fifty 
years. 

It is only just to Dr. Crooks that we copy the 
foot-note which he appends to the sentence which 
precedes the strange assertion relating to Mr. Cal- 
houn: "As to the free States, it was asserted that 
slavery had the right of protection when it was 
there in the person of slaves in transit; and as to 
the national Territories, that it had there the right 
of undisturbed occupation." This assertion was 
made beyond question, but why is it attributed to 
Mr. Calhoun? It is the language of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, adopted in 1787. Ar- 



12 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



tide IV., Section 2., paragraph 3, of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, says: 

No person, held to service or labor in one State under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any 
law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or 
labor; but shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom 
such service or labor may be due. 

Here it is expressly declared that this property 
in slaves shall be "protected" against any "law 
or regulation' 5 of any State in the Union, even 
when the fugitive appeals to the political opinion 
of a non-slave-holding public. 

It is a strange confusion of ideas that attributes 
to the invention of " Southern Methodist leaders" 
a proposition that was incorporated into the organ- 
ic law of the country, without which " protection " 
there would have been no federal union at all. 
The Constitution recognized property in slaves and 
enacted special safeguards for its protection ; and 
Mr. Calhoun, prior to 1820, maintained the right 
of slave-holders to carry that property into any 
Territory of the United States except that portion 
which had been ceded by Virginia, in which slav- 
ery was prohibited as early as 1787. This North- 
west Territory, out of which Ohio and other States 
were afterward formed, by an organic act of re- 
nunciation by a slave-holding State, was forever 
closed to the slave-holder and his property. Does 
Dr. Crooks maintain that, notwithstanding this act 
of Virginia and the Missouri Compromise act, Mr. 
Calhoun asserted the right of slave-holders to re- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



13 



side and to employ their slaves in any Territory 
north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes ? 

In 1848, four years after the division of the 
Church, and at the very time that the Northern 
General Conference were engaged in repudiating 
their solemn compact, Mr. Calhoun was one of the 
four Southern men appointed upon a committee in 
the Senate to make an amicable arrangement for 
the settlement of the slavery agitation. In order 
to secure peace and quietude, Mr. Calhoun and 
three other Southern men on the committee voted 
to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the 
Pacific Ocean. This gave the North five-sixths of 
the territory and nineteen-twentieths of the value 
acquired from Mexico. Every Northern man on 
the committee voted against it! 

As a last resort to preserve the union of the 
States, Mr. Calhoun voted with a majority of the 
Senate to leave the whole question to the Supreme 
Court of the United States. The " Clayton Com- 
promise " passed the Senate, but was defeated in 
the House of Representatives by a majority of fif- 
teen; and twenty-seven members of the New En- 
gland States voted against Mr. Calhoun and the 
peace measures of 1848! Thus, indeed, " Mr. 
Calhoun trod in the footsteps of Southern Meth- 
odist leaders." 

6 ' All things are possible" to the imagination of 
our Northern brethren when they take up the pen 
to instruct their readers concerning the great strug- 
gle of 1844. But really this feat of the learned 



*4 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



biographer of Bishop Simpson awakens our sur- 
prise and astonishment. Mr. Calhoun was in his 
grave when the Missouri Compromise w r as repealed 
and the territorial question was re-opened. He 
had been dead ten years before the first gun was 
fired in the Civil War, and what possible connec- 
tion there can be between the act of deposing 
Bishop Andrew in 1844 and the brief subsequent 
career of Mr. Calhoun we cannot perceive. Doubt- 
less that great statesman thought and felt as 4 6 the 
Southern Methodist leaders " thought and felt, that 
the act of deposing a man from the episcopal office, 
in the face of the admission that he had committed 
no offense against the laws of God or man, was a 
demonstration of the sorrowful truth that the time 
for the separation of Abraham and Lot had arrived. 

With all due deference to the superior judgment 
of Dr. Crooks, we assert that we cannot see any 
connection whatever between the "claim* 5 or the 
action of the Southern Methodist leaders in 1844 
and the breaking out of the Civil War in 1S61. 
We can as readily connect, in the chain of cause 
and consequence, the visit of Jesse Lee to Boston 
as a Methodist preacher with the secession con- 
spiracy in New England that threatened the disso- 
lution of the Union in 1808. or the later and more 
memorable proceeding of the Hartford Secession 
Convention in 1814. The extinction of the Meth- 
odist Church in the South would have been the in 
evitable consequence if the delegates from the 
slave-holding States had submitted to the deposi- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



tion of Bishop Andrew simply because his wife 
was the owner of slaves that she could not eman- 
cipate. Whether the restraining cause in Mrs. 
Andrew's case was legal or moral, or merely a pe- 
cuniary one, the assertion that a Methodist bishop 
was disqualified for his ministerial functions be- 
cause his wife had inherited a species of property 
recognized by the fundamental law of the land 
was a declaration that rendered the union of the 
Northern and Southern Conferences impossible. 

We shall not imitate the example of Dr. Crooks. 
He has given his readers not merely an ex -parte 
statement of the case, but he has injured his own 
cause by needlessly distorting and misrepresenting 
the facts of history. We propose to deal justly and 
fairly with our Northern brethren. We are pre- 
pared, even at this late day, to sympathize with the 
delegates from the four New England Conferences 
that precipitated the division of the Church in 1844. 
Dr. Crooks looks upon that division — 66 secession 
he pleasantly calls it — as an unmitigated evil. We 
regard it as a happy event, one that had a tenden- 
cy to postpone, not to hasten the period of the 
Civil War. We are prepared, in feeling, to ex- 
change places with the Methodist station preacher in 
Boston. Our presencewould not have been tolerat- 
ed in the pulpit of Boston at that time : and had we 
been a pastor in our native city of Savannah, Ga., 
we certainly would have felt constrained to tell 
Brother Sandford or Brother George Pickering, if 
either of them had visited that city in 1844, that 



i6 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



we could not thrust a fire-brand into the commu- 
nity by asking the visitor to preach in our pulpit. 
But " our pulpit ?? is a small part of the great parish 
of the world, and Boston is not very much greater. 
Why can we not agree to do, each in his own way, 
the work that Providence has mapped out for us? 

The state of public opinion and feeling in New 
England was such that Bishop Andrew could not 
be tolerated because his wife owned several slaves 
who were incapable of taking care of themselves, 
property that she inherited, and persons that it 
would have been sheer cruelty to thrust out upon 
the tender mercies of strangers or enemies. Let 
us grant that fact, and we will grant, further, that 
all New England took a very different view of the 
question from that entertained by us, and that their 
action was based upon sober reason and Christian 
principle. Admitting all that, when the pressure 
of New England sentiment forced the Northern 
delegates to stigmatize Bishop iVndrew as a sinner 
who would not be suffered to preside in a New 
England Conference, the death-knell of Methodist 
union was sounded. It might be for evil, it might 
be for good, but separation must come. Divorce 
may be an unseemly, an uncomely thing; but there- 
are circumstances that will justify it, the Lord of life 
being the witness in the case. Why then should 
these ecclesiastical sections desire to live together, 
under the same roof, if either had so offended the 
conscience of the other as to make the marriage 
relation a mockery and a crime? 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN 



17 



If Bishop Andrew had rendered himself obnox- 
ious to the public opinion and conscience of New 
England, the Methodist preachers from that sec- 
tion did well to say so, and if the people of the 
North indorsed the sentiment, or admitted the ne- 
cessity of deposing him from the episcopal chair, 
it was a manly act to do it, and that it was done in 
the least offensive terms is a proof that the grace 
of God can throw a roseate hue over the very gen- 
ius of fanaticism. We have not a word of objec- 
tion to urge against the New England brethren, or 
the great body of the Northern delegates, because 
they uttered the sentiment that prevailed among 
their people. No matter who created the sentiment, 
nor when it was created, the fact remains that 
Bishop Andrew was "unacceptable." But the 
fact itself, and the reason for the fact, made a 
proclamation of Methodist disunion. We had a 
large country then, and we have a larger now. 
There was room for every man to work. North- 
ern men, of abolitionist tendencies, could not serve 
the Church in the South. That experiment was 
tried, with deplorable results. Southern men, 
" connected with slavery," could not serve New 
England stations and circuits, and the Southern 
brethren had the good sense not to try the experi- 
ment, and deplorable results were prevented. Why 
should we go any farther, and become deeper and 
deeper entangled at every step ? When love and 
esteem had departed, why should the skeleton 
bonds of ecclesiastical union be perpetuated ? 
2 



i8 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Happily, the General Conference of 1844, by a 
remarkable vote, was of our way of thinking upon 
this subject. They voted — and Bishop (then Mr.) 
Simpson was among them — and they voted honest- 
ly, we have no doubt, that the time had come for 
the Southern Conferences to set up for themselves. 
As an abstract question the union of a million of 
Methodists in 1844 was a very beautiful and a 
very desirable thing. As an abstract question the 
union of five millions of Methodists would be a 
very beautiful, a very striking picture in 1891. But 
when the cold, clear light of philosophy and spir- 
itual wisdom irradiates the scene the impartial ob- 
server sees that the danger that existed in 1844 has 
been multiplied fivefold in 1890. The whole sub- 
ject has been narrowed down into a single sen- 
tence. If Southern Methodism is the thing that 
Dr. Crooks has painted it, we were unworthy of 
the union with good men in 1844, as we are un- 
worthy of such a union at this day. If Southern 
Methodism has been misrepresented by Dr. 
Crooks, and by many others, the moral unfitness 
belongs to the other party. If there be no moral 
question involved (and there ought not to be), yet 
the peculiar conditions of our country are such 
that the ends of peace and the cause of God re- 
quire that each section should be allowed to work 
out its destiny and fulfill its obligations with the 
least possible hinderance from the other. 

Dr. Crooks calls the separation of 1844 a 
" schism." This is unfortunate for his case, be- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



*9 



cause Bishop Simpson was one of the men who cre- 
ated this " schism." He indorsed by his vote the 
action of the Southern Conferences, by providing a 
plan for their erection into an independent Church. 
This we shall show presently. But this ecclesias- 
tical schism, Dr. Crooks says, was the prelude to 
a civil schism of greater dimensions and of untold 
horrors. 

We have already stated that we do not see the 
slightest connection between the organization of 
the Southern Methodist Church and the Civil War 
of 1861. If any Southern delegate on the floor of 
the Conference or elsewhere proclaimed the sep- 
aration of 1844 as a P r elude to disunion and civil 
war, he was acting only as others have done who 
predicted civil war and dissolution of the Union 
half a century before, and many times since, the 
exciting and procuring cause being the state of 
public opinion in New England. 

It is well to take a cursory view of some facts that 
lie beyond the observation of the casual reader. A 
correspondent of Mr. Jefferson, ex-President of 
the United States, wrote to him in 1825, concern- 
ing an interview that occurred between Mr. Jeffer- 
son and John Quincy Adams in 1808. Mr. Jeffer- 
son replies : 

That interview I remember well; not indeed in the very 
words which passed between us, but in their substance, which 
was of a character too awful, too deeply engraved on my mind, 
and influencing too materially the course I had to pursue, ever 
to be forgotten. Mr. Adams called on me pending the embargo, 
and while endeavors were making to obtain its repeal. He 



20 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



made some apologies for the call, on the ground of our not be- 
ing then in the habit of confidential communications, but that 
which he had then to make involved too seriously the interest 
of our country not to overrule all other considerations with him, 
and make it his duty to reveal it to myself particularly. I as- 
sured him that there was no occasion for anv apologv for his 
visit; that on the contrary his communications would be thank- 
fully received, and would add a confirmation the more to my 
entire confidence in the rectitude and patriotism of his conduct 
and principles. He spoke then of the dissatisfaction of the 
eastern portion of our Confederacy with the restraints of the 
embargo then existing, and their restlessness under it; that 
there was nothing which might not be attempted to rid them- 
selves of it; that he had information of the most unquestiona- 
ble certainty that certain citizens of the Eastern States (I think 
he named Massachusetts particularly) were in negotiation with 
agents of the British Government, the object of which was an 
agreement that the New England States should take no further 
part in the war then going on; that without formally declaring 
their separation from the Union of the States, they should with- 
draw from all aid and obedience to them ; that their navigation 
and commerce should be free from restraint and interruption by 
the British; that they should be considered and treated by them 
as neutrals, and as such might conduct themselves toward both 
parties: and at the close of the war be at liberty to rejoin the 
Confederacy. He assured me that there was eminent danger 
that the convention would take place; that the temptations 
were such as might debauch many from their fidelity to the 
Union; and that to enable its friends to make head against it 
the repeal of the embargo was absolutely necessary. I expressed 
a just sense of the merit of this information, and of the impor- 
tance of the disclosure to the safety and even the salvation of 
our country; and however reluctant I was to abandon the meas- 
ure (a measure which, persevered in a little longer, we had sub- 
sequent and satisfactory assurance would have effected its object 
completely), from that moment, and influenced by that infor- 
mation, I saw the necessity of abandoning it, and instead of ef- 
fecting our purpose bv this peaceful weapon we must fight it 
out or break the Union. I then recommended to my friends to 
yield to the necessity of a repeal of the embargo, and to en- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



21 



deavor to supply its place by the best substitute in which they 
could procure a general concurrence. ("Jefferson's Corre- 
spondence," .Vol. IV., pp. 419, 420.) 

With this attitude of New England in 1808 let us 
contrast the conduct of Virginia in 1798. The 
Federal administration of John Adams was taking 
the necessary steps to vindicate the honor of the 
country, and to redress the wrongs committed 
against our commerce by republican France. 
George Washington was appointed general in 
chief, naval armaments were voted, and a decla- 
ration of war was expected daily. In this state 
of things the students of William and Mary Col-' 
lege, in Virginia, the followers of Mr. Jefferson, 
and therefore charged with being partisans of 
France, adopted an address to their members of 
Congress. After stating with energy and clear- 
ness their arguments in opposition to a war with 
France, these young men say: 

Should the representatives of the people, exercising their 
constitutional authority, either declare or by their acts bring on 
a commencement of hostilities, we shall no longer conceive our- 
selves justified in using the style of remonstrance to our gov- 
ernment; but, throwing aside our opposition to measures which 
we conceive to have been so highly improper, we will imitate 
the glorious example of our predecessors at William and Mary, 
in being ready to defend our rights and liberties against foreign 
invasion. 

We commend this picture to the thoughtful at- 
tention of the reader. In the life-time of the gen- 
eration that had wrested their liberty from Great 
Britain, and while the man who wrote the immor- 
tal Declaration of Independence was in the presi- 



22 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

dential chair, the people of New England threaten 
to enter into negotiations with the ancient enemy 
of the United States, and promise to stand by 
whilst English ships of war burn the harbors, de- 
stroy the vessels, and kill and capture the citizens 
of the Middle, Southern, and Western States, with- 
out sending a man or a gun to the defense of their 
former fellow-citizens ! 

On the other hand, France had been the friend 
of the American colonies, and had given them aid 
and comfort in the darkest hour of the struggle for 
liberty. Yet, in the event that the national honor 
makes the demand, the young men of Virginia 
throw aside ail jealousies and theories, and pledge 
themselves to stand by their country, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that such a conflict must bring every 
farmer in Virginia to the verge of bankruptcy. 

Three years after this memorable event, the 
threatened secession of New England from the 
Union, to prevent which the President of the Unit- 
ed States was compelled to abandon a measure 
which would have prevented a war with England, 
we find this remarkable propensity to create causes 
for disunion taking a new and extraordinary turn. 

The trouble in 1811 was the proposal to admit 
Louisiana into the Union as a State. The most 
distinguished citizen of Massachusetts at that time, 
Josiah Quincy, in his place in the Congress of the 
United States, affirms that the admission of Louis- 
iana would dissolve the Union. 

Mr. Quincy repeated and justified a remark he had made; 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



23 



which, to save all misapprehension, he committed to writing 
in the following words: " If this bill passes, it is my deliberate 
opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will 
free the States from their ?noral obligations / and as it 'will be the 
right of all, so it -will be the duty of some, to prepare for a separa- 
tion, amicably if they can, violently if they must." (National 
Intelligencer, January 15, 181 1.) 

That this expression of opinion was not the ut- 
terance of one man only is apparent from the fol- 
lowing manifesto of the citizens of Deerfield, 
Mass., and presented to the Legislature of the 
State in 1814: 

Should the present administration, with their wicked adher- 
ents in the Southern States, still persist in the prosecution of 
this wicked and ruinous war — in unconstitutionally creating 
new States in the mud of Louisiana (the inhabitants of which 
country are as ignorant of republicanism as the alligators of 
their swamps), and in opposition to the commercial rights and 
privileges of New England, much as we deprecate a separation 
of the Union, we deem it an evil much less to be dreaded than 
a co-operation with them in their nefarious objects. 

If Mr. Calhoun had desired to obtain authority 
for the absolute nullification of a law of the United 
States, he would not have sought for the footsteps 
of fifty Methodist preachers in 1844, when he had 
only to turn to the pages of history, in which the 
following example is recorded. The people of 
Boston, in convention assembled, passed the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved, That we will not voluntarily aid or assist in the 
execution of the act passed on the ninth of this month, for en- 
forcing the several embargo laws: and that all those who shall 
assist in enforcing upon others the arbitrary and unconstitutional 
provisions of this act ought to be considered as enemies to the 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Constitution of the United States and hostile to the liberties of 
this people! 

The facility with which the people of New En- 
gland could invent a cause that would justify a 
threat to dissolve the Union of the States will ap- 
pear from the language presented by the people of 
Hadley, Mass., to the Legislature of the State: 

Resolved, That in our. opinion a perseverance in that deadly 
hostility to commerce, which, we believe, derives its origin and 
vigor from a deep-rooted jealousy of the Eastern States, will in- 
evitably lead to a dissolution of the Union. And though we most 
sincerely deprecate such an event, yet we cannot suppress our 
fears that the time is at hand when a separation of these States will 
be enforced by the most irresistible of all motives — self preser- 
vation ! 

At the time of this " hostility to commerce ' ? the 
little State of Georgia, by a single sea-port city, 
sent to market more domestic exports than all the 
States of New England combined ! 

The wonderful character of New England opin- 
ion will be observed by the reader when he re- 
members that the Senate of the State of Massachu- 
setts, in June, 1812, only eighteen months before 
the Deerfield meeting, in an address to the people 
of the State, used these remarkable words concern- 
ing this "wicked and ruinous war " with England: 

The constituted authorities of the United States, in Congress 
assembled, submitting the justice of their cause to the God of 
battles, have at length declared war against this implacable foe; 

a war for the liberty of our citizens, a war for our national sover- 
eignty and independence, a war for our republican form of govern- 
ment against the machinations of despotism. 

T-est the reader should imagine that the Legisla- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



25 



ture of Massachusetts was incapable of eating its 
own words, he should know that a report of a joint 
committee of both houses , in less than twenty months 
after the above utterance, asserted " the propriety, 
justice, and necessity of forcible resistance to the 
measures of the general government," and assigned 
the following as one of the reasons: 

There exists in all parts of this Commonwealth a fear, and 
in many a settled belief, that the course of foreign and domes- 
tic policy pursued by the Government of the United States for 
several years past has its foundation in a deliberate intention 
to impair, if not to destroy, that free spirit and exercise of com- 
merce which, aided by the habits, manners, and institutions of 
our ancestors, and the blessings of divine providence, have been 
the principal source of the freedom, wealth, and general pros- 
perity of this recently happy and flourishing people. 

The reader will be inclined to the opinion that 
theseutterances, although credited to the same Leg- 
islature, cannot be the utterances of the same men. 
A change of membership, from one party to anoth- 
er, must have occurred. But this explanation is 
not at all necessary, not in New England. For 
it is upon record that Mr. Josiah Quincy — the gen- 
tleman who declared the admission of Louisiana 
to be a virtual dissolution of the Union — illustrated 
the versatility of New England politics in the Con- 
gress of the United States in 181 2. Mr. Quincy 
was one of those who voted to authorize the Presi- 
dent to accept the services of fifty thousand volun- 
teers, to be organized, trained, and held in readi- 
ness for the defense of the country against the 
hostility of England. Mr. Quincy voted in favor 



26 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



of authorizing the President to call out the militia 
whenever he believed that the public service re- 
quired such action. Mr, Quincy voted in favor of 
fitting up the vessels of the navy that needed re- 
pair, that they might be immediately placed in 
commission. Mr. Quincy voted to arm our mer- 
chant vessels, and to authorize them to use force 
to repel unlawful interference on the high seas. 
Mr. Quincy voted in favor of raising an additional 
military force, and his name is recorded in the list 
of yeas, being one of 94 against a negative vote of 
34. Mr. Quincy voted for the bill to enlarge and 
perfect the naval establishment of the country, the 
only enemy then in prospect being Great Britain. 
Mr. Quincy voted for the bill which authorized a 
loan of eleven millions of dollars to carry on the 
war. After all this, having voted for every pre- 
paratory measure necessary for the successful 
prosecution of war, Mr. Quincy faced about, and 
absolutely voted against the declaration of w r ar 
against Great Britain ! 

Now Mr. Calhoun was a personal witness of all 
these occurences, and if he had needed any foot- 
steps to direct him in the pathway of secession, 
here they were dating back to the very commence- 
ment of his public life, and nearly forty years be- 
fore some fifty odd Methodist preachers in New 
York preferred the independence of their pastoral 
charges to the disgrace of their own bishop and 
the sentence of excommunication pronounced 
against nearly one-half of the Methodists in Amer- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 27 



ica. If Mr. Calhoun had been seeking for clerical 
footsteps that paved the way to secession and dis- 
union, it is not to the little band of itinerant Meth- 
odist preachers that he would turn for the justifi- 
cation of his methods or the establishment of his 
principles. 

The New r England pulpit would be ample mate- 
rial for every purpose of a disunionist, and the 
perilous period of a destructive foreign war would 
be the most delicate opportunity for the display of 
disunion sentiments. In the year 1814 the capitol 
building in Washington City was in ashes — burned 
to the ground by the English invaders. The Gov- 
ernment of the United States was in hiding from 
the enemy: the records of the nation destroyed; 
public credit prostrated : doubt, gloom, humiliation 
on almost every hand. The brave citizens of Ten- 
nessee were manfully driving back the hordes of 
savages that Christian England had armed and 
instigated to deeds of massacre and spoliation 
throughout the West. 

From a contemporary volume, issued in 1815, 
we find the case fully stated: 

1. Engagements were entered into in Boston by individuals, 
pledging themselves not to subscribe to the government loans^ 
When some of them afterward did subscribe, they found it 
necessary to do it secretly to avoid the odium and the persecu- 
tion excited against all who lent their monev to the government. 

3. The utmost influence of the press and the pulpit was em- 
ployed to discourage and denounce subscribers to the loans, 
They were proscribed as infamous in the most popular organs 
of the day, and declared in those papers and from the pulpit to 
be absolute murderers. 



28 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



4. During the winter, when the roads were in wretched order, 
and when freight was of course twenty or thirty per cent fc 
dearer than the common freight, the Boston banks made im- 
moderate, continued, oppressive, unprecedented, and hostile 
drafts for specie on the New York banks. The object of this 
action was to render it impossible for the banks in New York 
to aid the government, and thus precipitate the bankruptcy of 
the treasury of the United States. 

5. At this very time the Boston banks had nearly three dol- 
lars in specie for one dollar of their paper money in circula- 
tion. 

6. These drafts were continued throughout the spring and 
summer, and obliged the banks in the Middle and Southern 
States so far to curtail their accommodations as to bring the 
commercial world to the verge of bankruptcy. Large and nu- 
merous failures did take place. 

7. These drafts were carried to such an extent that on the 
26th of August the banks of Baltimore, on the 29th those of 
Philadelphia, and on the 31st those of New York were com- 
pelled to suspend specie pajmients. 

8. Contemporaneously with these immoderate drafts a very 
large amount of bills drawn by the Government of Lower Cana- 
da were, through the medium of agents in Boston, distributed 
in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 

9. These bills prodigiously increased the balances against the 
Southern banks, and rendered it impossible to find relief any- 
where else. 

10. The specie received for these bills from Netv Vork, Philadel- 
phia, and Baltimore was forvjarded to Canada, into the enemy's 
country, with the avowed purpose of procuring the shame and 
dishonor of the United States, by the bankruptcy of the gov- 
ernment, and the collapse of the war. 

ii- While these measures were in progress Admiral Cock- 
burn was putting the torch to the Capitol of the United States, 
and his red-coated soldiers were amusing themselves in chasing 
the half-armed militia of Maryland through the swamps and 
sands of the Chesapeake Bay ! 



The part enacted by the clergy in these proceed- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



2 9 



ings may be inferred from the following brief ex- 
tracts of sermons delivered in Boston and else- 
where in New England. The Rev. J. S. J. Gar- 
diner, rector of Trinity Church, Boston, at various 
times delivered his conscience of these expressions 
of patriotic zeal: 

" It is a war unexampled in the history of the world ; wan- 
tonly proclaimed on the most frivolous and groundless pretenses, 
against a nation from whose friendship we might derive the 
most signal advantages, and from whose hostility we have rea- 
son to dread the most tremendous losses." "Let no considera- 
tion whatever, my brethren, deter you at all times, and in all 
places, from execrating the present war. It is a war unjust, fool- 
ish, and ruinous." "As Mr. Madison has declared war, let Mr. 
Madison carry it on." "The U?iion has been long since virtually 
dissolved, and it is full time that this part of the Disunited States 
should take care of itself." " If at the command of weak or 
wicked rulers they undertake an unjust war, each man who vol- 
unteers his services in such a cause, or loans his money for its 
support, or by his conversation, his writings, or any other mode 
of influence, encourages its prosecution, that man is an accom- 
plice in the wickedness, loads his conscience with the blackest 
crimes, brings the guilt of blood upon his soul, and in the sight 
of God and his law is a murderer" "One only hope remains: 
that this last stroke of perfidy may open the eyes of the be- 
sotted people; that they may awake, like a giant from his slum- 
bers, and wreak their vengeance 011 their betrayers, by driving them 
from their stations, and placing at the helm more skillful and 
faithful hands." 

" If at the present moment no symptoms of civil war appear, 
they certainly will soon, unless the courage of the war party 
should fail them." "A civil war becomes as certain as the events 
that happen according to the known laws and established course 
of nature." 



The Rev. Elisha Parish, D.D., is not a whit be- 
hind his brother of Trinity Church, in either the 



30 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



boldness or the bitterness of his invectives. Hear 
him : 

"Those Western States which have been violent for this 
abominable war of murder; those States which have thirsted 
for blood, God has given them blood to drink. Their men have fallen. 
Their lamentations are deep and loud." " Let every man who 
sanctions this war by his suffrage or influence remember that he 
is laboring to cover himself and his country with blood. The 
blood of the slain -will cry from the ground against him " " How 
will the supporters of this anti-Christian warfare endure their 
sentence, endure their own reflections, endure the fire that for- 
ever burns, the ivorm zvhich never dies, the hosannas of heaven, 
tvhile the smoke of their torments asce?ids forever and ever? " 

This man speaks as if he had the keys of heaven 
and of the bottomless pit in his own hands, and 
had determined to consign his countrymen to end- 
less woe, simply because they were striving to main- 
tain the independence, the integrity, and the honor 
of the United States. 

All of these utterances were known to Mr. Cal- 
houn, and if he had been in search for methods of 
organizing rebellion, secession, and disunion, we 
repeat that he had only to take counsel from the 
clergymen of New England. 

Even the poor honor of inventing the doctrine 
of nullification is denied to Mr. Calhoun. This 
also is a New England institution, and was pub- 
lished to the world in 1814, in the proceedings of 
the celebrated Hartford Convention. " The dele- 
gates from the Legislatures of the States of Mas- 
sachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and 
from the counties of Grafton and Cheshire in the 
State of New Hampshire, and the county of Wind- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



31 



ham in the State of Vermont, assembled in con- 
vention, beg leave to report the following result of 
their conference." The date is December 15, 
1814. Among the conclusions of this famous body 
is the following : 

That acts of Congress in violation of the Constitution are ab- 
solutely void is an undeniable position. It does not, however, 
consist with the respect and forbearance due from a Confeder- 
ate State toward the general government to fly to open resist- 
ance upon every infraction of the Constitution. The mode and 
the energy of the opposition should always conform to the nat- 
ure of the violation, the intention of its authors, the extent of 
the injury inflicted, the determination manifested to persist in 
it, and the danger of delay. But hi cases of deliberate, dangerous^ 
and pal fable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty 
of a State, and liberties of the people, it is not only the right but 
the duty of such a State to interpose its authority for their protec- 
tion, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. "When emer- 
gencies occur which are either beyond the reach of the judicial 
tribunals or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their 
forms, States which have no common umpire must be their awn 
judges, and execute their own decisio?is. (" Proceedings of the 
Hartford Convention," p. 9.) 

This is rather plain language, but the committee 
clothed its utterances in language plainer still. It 
is impossible to place more than one construction 
upon the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the Leg- 
islatures of the several States represented in this convention, to 
adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually to protect 
the citizens of said States from the operation a?id effects of all acts 
which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the United 
States, which shall contain provisions subjecting the militia or 
other citizens to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments 
not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. 

If this is not the doctrine of nullification, grow- 



32 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ing into secession and civil war, then it is impossi- 
ble to express those ideas in the courtly language 
of politics and diplomacy. It is not our purpose 
to indorse or to condemn the theory of the govern- 
ment which is clearly outlined in the proceedings 
of the Hartford Convention. It is part of the res 
gestce, and one of the antecedents of the Civil War 
of 1861. But a more significant one still was the 
agitation which resulted in the Missouri Compro- 
mise in 1820. The fearful meaning of that great 
contest is described by one who was deeply read 
in the lore of human nature. In a letter dated 
April 22, 1820, Mr. Jefferson says: 

But this momentous question (the Missouri contest), like a 
fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I 
considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, 
indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final 
sentence. A geographical line, coincident with a marked principle, 
moral, and political, once conceived and held up to the angry pas- 
sions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation 
will mark it deeper and deeper. ... I regret that I am now 
to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by 
the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happi- 
ness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and 
unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation 
is to be that I live not to weep over it. 

It is apparent in the light of these passages of 
American history, that the anomalous thing called 
" New England sentiment" has been a disturbing 
factor in the social, civil, and religious circles of 
the United States ever since the formation of the 
government. It was ' fi New England sentiment" 
that created the " Alien and Sedition " law under 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



33 



the elder Adams. It was " New England senti- 
ment " that imperiled the republican form of gov- 
ernment, and sought to introduce a hereditary 
monarchy into the American Constitution. It was 
" New England sentiment " that clamored for war 
with France when a New England statesman was 
in the presidential chair, and threatened the disso- 
lution of the Union because a Virginia statesman 
dared to avenge the wrongs that England had per- 
petrated upon a peaceful and unoffending nation. 
It was " New England sentiment " that did all that 
could be done to bankrupt the Federal Govern- 
ment at the very time that the capitol of the United 
States lay in ashes, burned by the torch of En- 
glish invaders. It was " New England sentiment " 
that caused the President of the United States to 
recede from a measure of retaliation against En- 
gland, a measure that would have secured the ob- 
jects for which we were contending. It was 
" New England sentiment " that created the Hart- 
ford Convention, in which the nullification of the 
laws of Congress and the doctrine of secession 
from the Union for causes of which each State was 
to be the judge were principles asserted and main- 
tained by the representatives of New England 
Legislatures. 

It was " New England sentiment " that defeated 
the embargo in 1808, and thus necessitated a war 
with Great Britain. It was " New England senti- 
ment " that caused the bankers of Boston to make 
a specie demand upon the banks of New York, 
3 



34 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Philadelphia, and Baltimore; and having exhausted 
the specie reserve, compelled the banks of the 
Middle States to decline the United States loan. 
It was " New England sentiment " that compelled 
the patriotic citizens of the Eastern States to lend 
their money to the government under the protec- 
tion of secrecy. It was " New England senti- 
ment" that caused public men to threaten the 
President of the United States with violence, and 
prompted a toast at a public banquet in which " Mr. 
Madison on the Island of Elba" was significally 
* toasted, as a reminder that the President would 
soon be an exile from his country, banished by the 
lawless uprising in the East. It was " New En- 
gland sentiment" that first precipitated a war 
with England, and then repudiated the act of their 
own government, and clamored for the sacrifice of 
the national honor for the sake of the dollars to be 
made by the carrying trade. It was " New En- 
gland sentiment" that sustained the parties who 
hung out 6 ' blue lights" in the harbor of New 
London, in the time of war, in order to advise 
British ships that American vessels were about to 
leave the harbor, by which signals the ships of the 
United States might be delivered into the enemy's 
hands. 

It was "New England sentiment" that caused 
many millions of gold and silver to be withdrawn 
from New York and Southern banks ; and, having 
prostrated these banks by decreasing their power 
to aid the United States Government, it was ' 4 New 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



35 



England sentiment" that, in time of actual war 
with Great Britain, shipped those millions of spe- 
cie into Canada, into the enemy's country, and the 
blood and treasure of the Middle, Western, and 
Southern States were compelled to pay the price 
of New England treason. 

Are we to be surprised, then, that "New En- 
gland sentiment " ventures to dominate the Church, 
and to bend or break any instrumentality that can 
be used for the purpose of propagating the favor- 
ite theories of the Eastern States? We are not 
surprised at the claim, nor are we astonished at the 
result. The four New England Conferences that 
demanded the deposition of Bishop Andrew were 
from the same territory that w T as represented by 
the delegates to the Hartford Convention, who 
commanded President Madison to make peace 
with England, the penalty of his disobedience be- 
ing the secession of the New England States. We 
have not the slightest doubt that the people who 
believed it to be a crime to buy a bond of the 
United States in 1814 believed it to be a crime 
against "expediency" as well as principle to oc- 
cupy the position of Bishop Andrew. For this 
reason, because we accord the utmost sincerity to 
the parties, we believe that the separation of 1844 
was the greatest blessing that Providence has con- 
ferred upon the Methodist people in the United 
States. 

How puerile, then, is the cant that represents 
Mr. Calhoun as following in the footsteps of the 



36 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Southern Methodist leaders in 1844! If anything 
can exceed the absurdity of Dr. Crooks, it is the 
subsequent sentence that Bishop Simpson, in the 
General Conference of 1844, was wearied by the 
"rehearsal of the struggle of 1861 to 1865." 



CHAPTER II. 



Sincerity of the North in 1844 — Real Schism Threatened — • 
Slur upon Dr. Winans — Bowen, of Georgia, non est — Bishop 
Andrew Explains His Position — Resolution Passed by the 
General Conference— Bishop Simpson Votes to Condemn 
Andrew — Declaration of Southern Delegates — Dr. Charles 
Elliott Moves a Committee of Nine — Dr. McFerrin's Mo- 
tion — Committee's Report — Bishop Simpson Approves the 
Report — Votes for Separation — Five Northern and Four 
Southern Men on the Committee — Every Member but One 
Votes for the Plan of Separation — Sudden Change — The Plan 
of Separation Becomes a Plan for Secession! 

rj^KB intelligent student of history will rise from the 



X reading of the debates in the General Confer- 
ence of 1844 with two well-defined and distinct 
impressions. The first is, the evident sincerity of 
the Northern delegates throughout the entire dis- 
cussion. They were acting under pressure that 
they were powerless to resist. 

A half-century of agitation had formed an ef- 
fective target upon which the conscience and the 
intellect of the North could expend itself. Argu- 
ment was useless. Protestations of love and affec- 
tion were mockeries. Men deceived themselves 
when they bandied compliments which were once 
words of precious meaning, but had now been 
transformed into the shallow forms of useless cour- 
tesy. 

The men of the North could not have done oth- 




(37) 



38 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



erwise than they did. Dissolution of the bands 
that bound the Church together in the North was 
as certain as the coming of the autumn season, in 
the event of a decision which exonerated Bishop 
Andrew. 

On the other hand, the student will perceive the 
tone of sadness that served only to make the duty 
of the Southern delegates more imperative and un- 
compromising. Dr. Crooks professes not to un- 
derstand what Bishop Soule meant by being "im- 
molated" on'the altar of the Church. Perhaps we 
do not see as clearly as that great man saw the 
principle that was involved. But there was more 
than one man in that Southern delegation who 
would gladly have sacrificed his life if by so doing 
the union of the Church could have been pre- 
served. It was like the rending of one-half of the 
living body from the other. But the duty of the 
hour w r as bravely discharged, and the final words 
of the debate gave way to the inevitable votes that 
settled forever the status of Methodism in the 
United States. 

That Dr. Crooks has given a caricature of this 
great debate the casual reader will see without 
taking the trouble to consult the records. For ex- 
ample, take the following: 

From the Episcopal Board comes the voice of Soule coun- 
seling the delegates to be calm and avoid loudness of speech. 
He is ready to be "immolated" on the altar of union, but in 
what precise way he does not explain. VTinans, of Mississippi 
(an orator with the air of a backwoodsman), retorts that he 
cannot help loud speaking, and is going to speak loudly. He is 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



39 



calm, he tells his brother delegates, but it is the calmness of de- 
spair. He is the first of the speakers to suggest secession, but 
shrinks from pronouncing the word. Bowen, of Georgia, is 
bolder, and predicts the disunion of the States as the probable 
result of the division of the Church. (Page 234.) 

There are two errors in this brief extract. By 
what authority Dr. Crooks has taken upon himself 
the right to fill a blank and spell out an unspoken 
word in the speech of Dr. Winans we know not. 
We are confident, however, that no one who was 
familiar with the modes of thought of the Missis- 
sippi preacher would dream that he intended to 
pronounce the word "secession" in the connec- 
tion here suggested. The words of Dr. Winans 
are these : 

By the vote contemplated by this body, and solicited by this 
resolution, you will render it expedient — nay, more, you render 
it indispensable; nay, more, you render it uncontrollably neces- 
sary — that as large a portion of the Church — and permit me to 
add, a portion always conformed in their views and practices 
to the Discipline of the Church — I say that by this vote vou 
render it indispensably — ay, uncontrollably — necessary that that 
portion of the Church should — I dread to pronounce the word, 
but you understand me. Yes, sir; you create an uncontrollable 
necessity that there should be a disconnection of that large por- 
tion of the Church from your body. (" Debates," p. 89.) 

Did Dr. Winans mean to say that it was "un- 
controllably necessary that that portion of the 
Church should secede?" It would have been an 
absurdity of the highest degree, for there was no 
secession, but a peaceful, amicable separation, by 
and with the consent of the General Conference, 
expressed in overwhelming numbers. " Seces- 



40 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



sion " was never mentioned by any Southern del- 
egate. It was an after-thought even in the North, 
where the term employed was believed to be am- 
ply sufficient to justify the repudiation of a con- 
tract. 

The second error is more ludicrous than the first. 
"Bowen, of Georgia," is a myth. There was no 
such man in the Georgia delegation, nor was there 
such a man from the South. There was a Bowen, 
but he was from the Oneida Conference. But 
even here the words attributed to ( 1 Bowen, of 
Georgia," do not apply. Mr. Bowen, of Oneida, 
made a singular speech. We are not sure that we 
comprehend his meaning. Perhaps our readers 
will succeed better in their attempt. Mr. Bowen 
said: 

We deprecate the idea of a division, sir. We know that our 
great republic is connected together by the twofold ties of civil 
and ecclesiastical union. We are aware that to dissolve one of 
these ties would weaken the union of the whole, and, viewed 
under a civil aspect exclusively, we start back from the very 
idea; but, sir, it must be allowed that secession is preferable to 
schism. By schism, of course, is understood a division in the 
Church ; and if this must prevail throughout the whole Connec- 
tion — if the convulsions must be felt from center to circumfer- 
ence, it does seem to me that the disposition to pause in the 
choice of such an evil must lead to secession rather than schism. 
(" Debates," p. 90.) 

We think that either the printer or the reporter 
has marred the speech of Mr. Bowen. Take it as 
it is, however, we suppose that he meant to say 
that it was better to permit the South to secede as 
a body than to keep up the strife in every Church, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



4 1 



station, and circuit in the North.* By 44 schism " 
we suppose he meant the creation of opposing fac- 
tions, refusing to commune with one another, and 
possibly setting up rival Societies and congrega- 
tions in the North. There was never any danger 
of such an event in the South. The approach to 
unanimity of opinion has preserved the Southern 
Church from schism. Nobody denies the Chris- 
tian character of our Northern brethren, and we 
have never excluded them from communion with 
us. Ecclesiastical union is one thing, and the uni- 
ty of the spirit in the bond of love is another. To 
preserve the latter, we must sometimes sacrifice 
the former. This was done in 1844, and not by 
secession either, as we propose to show. 

Now what was the offense of Bishop Andrew? 
It is only necessary to state it in his own words, 
and we shall make no remark whatever concern- 
ing it: 

I was located in a country where free persons could not be 
obtained for hire, and I could not do the work of the family, 
mv wife could not do it: what was I to do? I was compelled to 
hire slaves, and pay their masters for their hire; but I had 
to change them every year — they were bad servants, they 
had no interest in me or mine — and I believe it would have 
been less sin before God to have bought a servant who 
would have taken an interest in me and in mine; but I did not 
do so. At length, however, I came into the possession of 
slaves: and I am a slave-holder (as I have already explained to 
the Conference), and I cannot help myself. It is known that I 
have waded through deep sorrows at the South during the last 
four vears: I have buried the wife of my youth and the mother 

* Better to have a division of the Church, than division in the 
Church. 



42 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



of my children, who left me with a family of motherless chil- 
dren, who needed a friend and a mother. I sought another 
(and with this the Conference has nothing to do); I found one 
who I believed would make me a good wife and a good mother 
for my children. I had known her long; my children knew and 
loved her. I sought to make my home a happy one, and I have 
done so. Sir, I have no apology to make. It has been said I 
did this thing voluntarily and with my eyes open. I did so de- 
liberately and in the fear of God, and God has blessed our 
union. I might have avoided this difficulty by resorting to a 
trick — by making over these slaves to my wife before marriage, 
or by doing as a friend who has taken ground in favor of the 
resolution before you suggested: " Why," said he, " did you not 
let your wife make over these negroes to her children, securing 
to herself an annuity from them?" Sir, my conscience would 
not allow me to do this thing. If I had done so, and these ne- 
groes had passed into the hands of those who would have treat- 
ed them unkindly, I should have been unhappy. Strange as it 
may seem to the brethren, I am a slave-holder for conscience' 
sake. I have no doubt that my wife would, without a moment's 
hesitation, consent to the manumission of those slaves, if I 
thought proper to do it. I know she would unhesitatingly con- 
sent to any arrangement I might deem proper to make on the 
subject. But how am I to free them? Some of them are old, 
too old to work to support themselves, and are only an expense 
to me; and some of them are little children. Where shall I 
send these, and who will provide for them ? But perhaps I shall 
be permitted to keep these; but then, if the others go, how 
shall I provide for these helpless ones; and as to the others, to 
what free State shall I send them? and what would be their 
condition? Besides, many of them would not go — they love 
their mistress, and could not be induced under any circum- 
stances to leave her. Sir, an aged and respectable minister said 
tome several years ago, when I asked him what I would do: "I 
would set them free," said he ; " I'd wash my hands of them ; and 
if they went to the devil, I'd be clear of them." Sir, into such 
views of religion and philanthropy my soul cannot enter. I 
believe the providence of God has thrown these creatures into 
my hands, and holds me responsible for their proper treatment. 
I have secured them to my wife by deed of trust since our mar- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



43 



riage. The arrangement was only in accordance with an un- 
derstanding existing previous to marriage. These servants 
were hers — she had inherited them from her former husband's 
estate — they had been her only source of support during her 
widowhood, and would still be her dependence if it should 
please God to remove me from her. I have nothing to leave 
her. I have given my life to the Church from my youth (and 
am now fifty) ; and although, as I have previously remarked, 
she would consent to any arrangement I might make, yet I 
cannot consent to take advantage of her affection for me to in- 
duce her to do what would injure her without at all benefiting 
the slaves. (" Debates," pp. 14S, 149.) 

All this was Greek to the great majority of the 
delegates from the North, and it is so still. This 
language could never be understood this side of 
the eternal world by most of those who were called 
upon to decide the issue. It is useless to argue 
the question, for instead of drawing nearer togeth- 
er and coming to a mutual understanding — that is 
to say, thorough agreement about the matter — we 
are growing farther apart. 

What did the Conference do? They passed the 
following preamble and resolution : 

Whereas the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing of 
any thing calculated to destroy our itinerant general superin- 
tendency; and whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected 
with slavery, by marriage and otherwise, and this act having 
drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the 
General Conference, will greatly embarrass the exercise of his 
office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in some 
places entirely prevent it; therefore, 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that 
he desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impedi- 
ment remains. 



Upon the call of the yeas and nays this paper 



44 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



was adopted by a vote of in yeas to 69 nays. 
Among the yeas is the name of Matthew Simpson, 
the Chairman of the Indiana Conference delegation. 

The next step that was taken, as the logical re- 
sult of this censure of Bishop Andrew, was the 
following paper, signed by the delegates from the 
Conferences in the Southern States: 

The Declaration of the Southern Delegates. 
The delegates of the Conferences in the slave-holding States 
take leave to declare to the General Conference of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church that the continued agitation on the subject 
of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church, the frequent 
action on that subject in the General Conference, and especially 
the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which 
resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from 
his office as superintendent, must produce a state of things in 
the South which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of 
this General Conference over these Conferences inconsistent 
with the success of the ministry in the slave-holding States. 

Dr. Charles Elliott moved to refer this paper to 
a committee of nine, and it was so ordered. The 
members of this committee were Robert Paine, 
Glezen Filmore, Peter Akers, Nathan Bangs, 
Thomas Crowder, Thomas B. Sargent, William 
Winans, Leonidas L. Hamline, and James Porter. 

Dr. McFerrin moved and the Conference adopt- 
ed the following: 

Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consid- 
eration the communication of the delegates from the Southern 
Conferences be instructed, provided they cannot in their judg- 
ment devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of the difficul- 
ties now existing in the Church on the subject of slavery, to 
devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mutual and friend- 
ly division of the Church. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 45 



Here are three important facts: I. The South- 
ern delegates declare that the continuance of the 
present ecclesiastical connection is impossible. 
The General Conference can no longer exercise 
its jurisdiction in the slave-holding States without 
imperiling the cause of God in the South. 2. This 
declaration is referred to a committee to consider 
the subject to which the paper refers. 3. That 
committee, by the order of the Conference, is in- 
structed to " devise, if possible, a constitutional 
plan for a mutual and friendly division of the 
Church." 

In a few days the committee reports, and after 
due consideration the report of the committee of 
nine is adopted. The various resolutions con- 
tained in the report are taken seriatim, and adopted. 
The preamble and first resolution are as follows : 

The select committee of nine, to consider and report on the 
declaration of the delegates from the Conferences of the slave- 
holding States, beg leave to submit the following report: 

Whereas a declaration has been presented to this General 
Conference, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of this 
body, from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slave-holding 
States, representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the 
objects and purposes of the Christian ministry and Church or- 
ganization cannot be successfully accomplished by them under 
the jurisdiction of this General Conference as now constituted; 
and whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to 
which the declaration asks attention, as not improbable, we es- 
teem it the duty of this General Conference to meet the emer- 
gency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity; there- 
fore, 

Resolved, by the delegates of the several Annual Conferences 
in General Conference assembled, 

1. That, should the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding 



46 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



States find it necessary t6 unite in a distinct ecclesiastical con- 
nection, the following rule shall be observed with regard to the 
northern boundary of such Connection: All the Societies, sta- 
tions, and Conferences adhering to the Church in the South, 
by a vote of a majority of the members of said Societies, sta- 
tions, and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pas- 
toral care of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church shall in nowise attempt to organ- 
ize Churches or Societies within the limits of the Church, 
South, nor shall they attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight 
therein ; it being understood that the ministry of the South re- 
ciprocally observe the same rule in relation to stations, Socie- 
ties, and Conferences adhering, by vote of a majority, to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church ; provided, also, that this rule shall 
apply only to Societies, stations, and Conferences bordering on 
the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall in 
all cases be left to the care of that Church within whose terri- 
tory they are situated. 

Upon this resolution the vote was yeas 147, nays 
22. Among the yeas is the name of Matthew 
Simpson. The second resolution is as follows: 

2. That ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and of- 
fice in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, re- 
main in that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to 
the Church, South. 

On this resolution the vote was 139 in the affirm- 
ative and 17 in the negative. As the yeas and nays 
are not given in the Journal, we can only infer 
that Matthew Simpson voted in the affirmative. 
The third resolution is as follows : 

3. Resolved, by the delegates of all the Annual Conferences 
in General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all 
the Annual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to 
authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the 
first clause shall read thus: "They shall not appropriate the 
produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN*. 



47 



any other purpose than for the benefit of the traveling, super- 
numerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, 
widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may be 
determined upon by the votes of two-thirds of the members of 
the General Conference. n 

The vote upon this resolution was 147 yeas and 
12 nays. The name of Matthew Simpson is 
among the yeas. The fourth resolution is as fol- 
lows : 

4. That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of three- 
fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution, 
shall have concurred in the recommendation to alter the sixth 
respective article, the Agents at New York and Cincinnati shall, 
and they are hereby authorized and directed to, deliver over to 
any authorized agent or appointee of the Church, South, should 
one be organized, all notes and book accounts against the min- 
isters, -Church-members, or citizens within its boundaries, with 
authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern 
Church, and that the said Agents also convey to the aforesaid 
agent or appointee of the South all the real estate, and assign 
to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right 
and interest connected with the printing establishments at 
Charleston, Richmond, and Nashville, which now belong to 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

This resolution was adopted without a call of 
the yeas and nays. The fifth resolution is as fol- 
lows : 

5. That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved 
the aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be 
transferred to the above agent of the Southern Church so much 
of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Concern as 
will, with notes, book accounts,- presses, etc., mentioned in the 
last resolution, bear the same proportion to the whole property 
of said Concern that the traveling preachers in the Southern 
Church shall bear to all the traveling ministers of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church; the division to be made on the basis of 
the number of traveling preachers in the forth-coming Minutes. 



48 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



The vote on this resolution was yeas 153, nays 
13. Matthew Simpson's name is recorded among 
the yeas. The sixth resolution is as follows: 

6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual pay- 
ments of $25,000 per annum, and specifically in stock of the 
Book Concern, and in Southern notes and accounts due the es- 
tablishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned 
above; and until the payments are made, the Southern Church 
shall share in all the net profits of the Book Concern, in the 
proportion that the amount due them, or in arrears, bears to all 
the property of the Concern. 

This resolution was adopted without taking the 
yeas and nays, and the six following resolutions 
were adopted in the same manner, the mind of the 
Conference having been declared by the over- 
whelming majorities given in every case in which 
the yeas and nays were called. The remainder of 
the report is as follows : 

7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley 
be, and they are hereby, appointed commissioners to act in con- 
cert with the same number of commissioners appointed by the 
Southern organization (should one be formed) to estimate the 
amount which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, 
and to have full powers to carry into effect the whole arrange- 
ment proposed with regard to the division of property, should 
the separation take place. And if by any means a vacancy oc- 
curs in this board of commissioners, the Book Committee at 
New York shall fill said vacancy. 

8. That whenever any agents of the Southern Church are 
clothed with legal authority or corporate power to act in the 
premises, the Agents at New York are hereby authorized and 
directed to act in concert with said Southern agents, so as to 
give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. 

9. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference 
funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



49 



Southern organization, shall be forever free from any claim set 
up on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as 
this resolution can be of force in the premises. 

10. That the Church so formed in the South shall have a 
common right to use all the copyrights in possession of the 
Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati at the time of the 
settlement by the commissioners. 

11. That the Book Agents at New York be directed to make 
such compensation to the Conferences, South, for their dividend 
from the Chartered Fund, as the commissioners above provid- 
ed for shall agree upon. 

12. That the bishops be respectfully requested to lay that 
part of this report requiring the action of the Annual Confer- 
ences before them us soon as possible, beginning with the New 
York Conference. 

Five members of this committee of nine who 
reported the Plan of Separation were delegates 
from non-slave-holding States, and with one ex- 
ception every member of the committee voted for 
every proposition contained in the report. The 
one exception was L. L. Hamline, who was either 
absent or failed to vote, as his name is not record- 
ed on either side of the question. There were 
178 members of the Conference in the city, and 
the total vote on the first proposition was 169, 
showing only nine members absent from the Con- 
ference-room, and the vote only lacked eleven 
names to complete the entire membership of the 
General Conference. If ever a great measure was 
adopted by a vote approaching to unanimity, this 
was the measure. The first resolution received 87 
percent, of the vote cast, and 82 per cent, of the -pos- 
sible vote. The next call by yeas and nays shows 
88 per cent, of the actual vote and 75 per cent, of 
4 



SO BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

the -possible vote in the affirmative. The third call 
shows 92 per cent, of the actual vote and 82 per 
cent, of the -possible vote in the affirmative. The 
last call shows 92 per cent, of the actual vote and 
85 per cent, of the possible vote in the affirmative. 

Now what was that measure ? The paper itself 
calls it a " Plan of Separation" Dr. Crooks calls 
it secession and schism! These five Northern men, 
coming from and representing non-slave-holding 
States, devised in committee, reported to the Gen- 
eral Conference, and voted for the accomplish- 
ment of a. " secession" and a sc/iism! Matthew 
Simpson voted for the " secession " of the South- 
ern Conferences, and Nathan Bangs, Glezen Fil- 
more, Peter Akers, Leonidas Hamline, and James 
Porter — every man of them an anti-slavery man 
— prepared the plan for the " secession! " Not 
only so, but Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and 
James B. Finley were appointed " commissioners" 
to arrange and perfect the plan of " secession! " 
Since the world was made such a proceeding as 
that was never recorded in the annals of ecclesias- 
tical history ! 

Four years elapsed, and in those four years the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had been or- 
ganized, and was quietly proceeding on its way. 
A fraternal delegate was appointed to carry the 
Christian greetings of the Southern Church to 
their brethren of the North. The religious sense 
of the country was shocked by the spectacle of a 
refusal to receive the frater?tal delegate appointed 
' by the Southern Church 1 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 5 1 



And Matthew Simpson, who had voted for every 
portion of the Plan of Separation in 1844, boxed 
the compass of principles and added his vote to 
the majority that repudiated the Plan of Separation 
in 1848! 

In political life, with a saving clause, we remem- 
ber but one case that resembles the attitude of 
Matthew Simpson. In 1788 Edmund Randolph, 
in a debate with Patrick Henry, denounced with 
scathing energy an act of the Government of Virgin- 
ia in putting to death the leader of a band of rob- 
bers in 1778. He declared the conduct of the au- 
thorities to be without precedent, committing an 
act of cruelty without even the forms of law, and 
said that he would expatriate himself if he believed 
such a crime could be repeated in Virginia. Nev- 
ertheless, Mr. Randolph was himself the attorney- 
general who convicted the man and caused him 
to be executed ! Ten years caused a wonderful 
failure in the memory of Mr. Randolph; but no 
such plea avails in this case. Whatever Mr. Simpson 
did in 1844, he renounced, revoked, repudiated in 
1848. There is not one extenuating fact in the 
entire record. He voted for an act of separation 
in 1844, in "Christian kindness and the strictest 
equity." This "kindness and equity" he repu- 
diated in 1848 ! 

And thus, we are informed by Dr. Crooks, 
Bishop Simpson- received the "preparatory train- 
ing by which he was fitted for the service rendered 
by him to the country from 1861 to 1865." 



CHAPTER III. 



New England Leads the General Conference — Bishop Andrew 
Not Allowed to Preside in New England — Mr. Wesley's Tes- 
timony on one Subject Applied to Another — John Street 
Church, New York, a Slave-holder — Mr. Whitefield — In- 
creasing Agitation — Antecedents of the Puritans — First Slave- 
ship Built in New England — First Speculators in Human 
Flesh — An Entire Colony in the Slave-trade — Cheapness of 
Slave Labor — Eliot Remonstrates — Indian Captives Sold as 
Slaves and Shipped Abroad — Barbarous Treatment of Slaves 
in New England — Legal Status of Slavery in Massachusetts 
— First Law Recognizing Slavery — Virginia Abolishes the 
Slave-trade Before Massachusetts— First Argument Against 
the Slave-trade — Petition of the Negroes in Massachusetts 
Disregarded. 

In the October number of this Review it is assert- 
ed that we are indebted to New England for 
the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
1844. If there be any blame, it belongs to the 
four Conferences that precipitated the issue, and 
they are justly entitled to the praise if that action 
has proved a wise and beneficent method of prep- 
aration for an event that no human power could 
delay for many years. 

The delegates from New England were not in- 
disposed to assume the responsibility. " Sir, I tell 
you," said Mr. Cass, of New Hampshire, " that, 
in my opinion, a slave-holder cannot sit in the 
episcopal chair in an Annual Conference in New 
England; and if Bishop Andrew holds his office, 
(52), 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



S3 



there will be large secessions, or whole Confer- 
ences will leave." This language is explicit, and 
there is nothing to be desired on the score of can- 
dor. Appreciating the delicacy of the position oc- 
cupied by Mr. Cass, we cannot fully indorse his 
method of fortifying that position. He was stand- 
ing on a volcano that was threatening an eruption 
at any moment, and he was certainly justifiable in 
adopting some means to avert a moral Herculane- 
um in his section of the country. But there was 
no need for his resort to " the opinions of some 
eminent men on the subject of slavery." New 
England was a law unto herself, and did not need 
assistance from without. But, inasmuch as he at- 
tempted to give the opinions of these eminent men, 
we seriously object to the manner in which he 
treated his authorities. 

Intemperate zeal often develops a fatal facility 
for misrepresentation. This tendency is sometimes 
accompanied by an air of simplicity and earnest- 
ness which appeals to human sympathy, while the 
argument advanced may make little impression 
upon the judicial faculty. In the case of Mr. 
Cass, however, the misrepresentation of John Wes- 
ley seems to be the work of design. The first 
sentence quoted is set forth as an independent 
proposition of universal application. " Men-buy- 
ers are exactly on a level with men-stealers." This 
is the complete sentence as given by Mr. Cass 
within inverted commas. In Mr. Wesley's tract, 
however, these ten words are preceded by twenty- 



54 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

four others in the sentence, and it is evident from 
the connection that Mr. Wesley alludes to persons 
who buy Africans who were stolen by slave-traders 
from their country, the fact of the kidnapping and 
stealing being known to the buver at the time of 
the purchase. In that case Mr. Wesley says that 
the man who buys a stolen negro, knowing him to 
be such, is as bad as the man who did the stealing. 
This is the well-known principle that the receiver 
of stolen goods is as bad as the thief, and no one 
could question the truth of the sentiment. But 
Mr. Cass quotes it in order to make Mr. Wesley 
say that any person who buys an African slave is 
"exactly on a level*' with the slave-dealer who 
steals and sells an African negro. This violence 
to the text of Mr. Wesley's tract is followed by an 
ingenious incorporation of another part of the es- 
say in such manner as to confirm the impression 
that Mr. Wesley made no distinction whatever be- 
tween the African slave-trade as practiced by the 
traders of New England and the mere possession 
or ownership of slaves. In order to do this, after 
declaiming a mutilated sentence as if it were a uni- 
versal proposition, Mr. Cass leaps over thirty lines 
of the printed essay on slavery and connects the 
sentence about "men-buyers and men-stealers " 
with the case of those who have inherited property 
in slaves. The object of Mr. Cass was undoubt- 
edly to produce Mr. Wesley's testimony as an 
unqualified and absolute condemnation of all forms 
of slave-holding, and for the purpose of putting 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



55 



every owner, of slaves on a par with " men-steal- 
ers." But the excited representative of the New 
Hampshire Conference did not stop at that point, 
bad as the misrepresentation was. He proceeded 
to wind up the paragraph with a vigorous denun- 
ciation, in w T hich Mr. Wesley is credited w r ith this 
language; "I strike at the root of this complicated 
villainy. I absolutely deny all slave-holding to be 
consistent with any degree of justice.' ' These words 
Mr. Wesley never wrote. They are the product of 
an age and of a spirit wholly unknown to the found- 
er of Methodism. Whether Mr. Cass interpolated 
these mischievous sentences, or whether they were 
supplied to him at second-hand by some laborer in 
the same field of morals, it is impossible to deter- 
mine. The fact is that the views of Mr. Wesley 
were tortured into an indorsement of the extreme 
position w r hich had been assumed by the abolition- 
ists of New England. 

Whatever may have been the opinion of John 
Wesley in regard to the question of slavery in the 
abstract, it is simply impossible that he could have 
regarded the Rev. George Whitefield as "exactly 
on a level with men-stealers." Bold as he was, 
John Wesley would not have denounced the stew- 
ards and trustees of John Street Church in New 
York as "exactly on a level with men-stealers." 
Whitefield and the officers of John Street Church 
in New r York were both "men-buyers," and the 
ownership of slaves for the use of the Orphan House 
in Georgia, or the property of the slave that served 



5<5 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the Church in New York as a sexton, did not and 
could not degrade these slave-holders in the esti- 
mation of right-thinking men to the level of the 
slave-traders in Boston who were growing rich by 
kidnapping and shipping the helpless natives of 
Africa to the West Indies and America. To sup- 
pose the contrary is to admit that good men are 
capable of doing away with all moral distinctions. 
Mr. Wesley's " Thoughts upon Slavery" is a wit- 
ness to the inflexible integrity of the founder of 
Methodism, but his opinions upon this subject are 
of no more value to us than his "Thoughts on 
Liberty," in which he denies the fundamental 
principles of republican government. The only 
question involved is the misrepresentation of the 
writings of a great and good man to serve the exi- 
gencies of a political crusade. 

That the agitation which for twelve years had 
been increasing in the New England States was, 
in its inception, a political movement will be shown 
in its proper place. The fiscal policy of New En- 
gland had extorted from South Carolina a revolt 
against the taxation of the South for the benefit of 
manufacturers in the East. The retort courteous 
was a vigorous and unfaltering crusade against the 
"peculiar institution" of South Carolina and the 
States below Mason and Dixon's line. One of 
the forms of this crusade was the rallying cry of a 
moral question which could not be lulled to sleep 
when once it had aroused the conscience of a peo- 
ple whose jealousies involved all forms of rivalry 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



57 



and all sections beyond the boundaries of New 
England. 

That there was a peculiar susceptibility for this 
agitation in the moral constitution of the descend- 
ants, of the Puritans can admit of little doubt. 
States and communities, precisely as individuals do, 
acquire in process of time a distinguishing charac- 
ter which gives them an allotted place and station 
in the world. That there should be a peculiar 
sensitiveness upon the subject of slavery, and that 
this sensitiveness should exhibit itself in every 
form of ultraism in sentiment, were natural results 
growing out of the singular antecedents of the white 
and black races in the States of New England. In 
the whole history of African slavery in North 
America the darkest chapter is that which records 
the conduct of New England toward the negro 
race. The intuitions of a people may exceed their 
ability to reason upon the law of retribution. The 
doubting intellect that converts itself by convincing 
others has its parallel in the uneasy conscience 
which lightens its own burden by imposing a heav- 
ier load upon another. For this reason it is im- 
possible to determine the causes of the division of 
the Church in 1844 without examining the records 
of New England and the attitude of that people to- 
ward the great question which became the occa- 
sion, not the cause, of a divided household of faith. 

The first American ship that engaged in the 
African slave-trade was the "Desire," built in 
Marblehead. in Massachusetts Colony, in 1636, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



From the port of Boston this vessel sailed upon 
her first voyage, carrying a complement of " men- 
stealers." The slaves were obtained by purchase, 
exchange of Indians captured in 6i just wars," and 
by such other means as the traders of the time saw 
fit to employ. Many of the return cargo of negro 
slaves were sold in the West Indies, some in Vir- 
ginia, and others were placed on the Boston mar- 
ket. One feature in the case is peculiar. From 
Moore's 64 Notes on the History of Slavery in Mas- 
sachusetts" we extract the following statement: 

It will be observed that this first entrance into the slave-trade 
was not a private, individual speculation. It ivas the enterprise 
of the authorities of the colony. And on the 13th of March, 1639, 
it Avas ordered bv the General Court '' that 3/. 8s. should be paid 
Lieftenant Davenport for the present, for charge disbursed for 
the slaves, which, when they have earned it, he is to repay it 
back again." The marginal note is, " Lieft. Davenport to keep 
the slaves." (Mass. Rec, I., 253. — Moore's "Notes," p. 9.) 

This record is eleven years prior to the first 
mention of negro slaves in the archives of Virginia, 
according to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson. 
It is a remarkable fact that the Massachusetts 
colony embarked in this enterprise. We would 
not be surprised at the early mention of a venture by 
individuals into a profitable field of trade occupied 
bv all the nations of Christendom, to a greater or less 
extent, through their merchants, but if there is 
anvwhere the record of an American colony fol- 
lowing the example of Massachusetts we have not 
found it. That in her corporate capacitv she began 
and for many years continued the occupation of 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



59 



" men-stealers," as defined by Mr. Cass, is a dis- 
tinction due to Massachusetts alone. 

The domestic feature of this traffic and the rea- 
sons which made the introduction of African slaves 
an important factor in the life of the colony we 
find fully set forth in a letter from Edward Down- 
ing, an Englishman who emigrated from London 
and married the sister of the elder Winthrop. The 
letter was written in 1645, during the struggle be- 
tween the Long Parliament and King Charles I. 
We use the modern spelling: 

A war with the Narragansett is very considerable to this 
plantation, for I doubt whether it is not sin in us, having power 
in our hands, to suffer them to maintain the worship of the 
devil, which their paw-waws often do. Secondly, if upon a 
just war the Lord should deliver them into our hands, we might 
easily have men, women, and children enough to exchange for 
Moors, which will be more gainful pillage for us than we can 
conceive, for I do not see how we can thrive until we get into 
a stock of slaves sufficient to do all our business, for our chil- 
dren's children will hardly see this great continent filled with 
people, so that our servants will still desire freedom to plant 
for themselves, and not stay but for very great wages. And I 
suppose you know very well how we shall maintain twenty 
Moors cheaper than one English servant. (Moore's "Notes," 
p, 10.) 

It may be readily conceived that the prospect of 
" gainful pillage " would have somewhat to do in 
determining the conditions of a " just war." But 
the established principle was admitted by all, min- 
isters and laymen, that an Indian prisoner might 
be justly sold into slavery in a foreign country. A 
dangerous neighbor was removed, and in exchange 
a cheap workman was obtained. White servants 



6o 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN, 



would not keep their contracts, and would soon set 
up for themselves. The " Moors " were property, 
owned as chattels, and kept at a cost of one-twen- 
tieth of the expense of an English servant. Not 
only was this exchange of Indian captives for Af- 
rican slaves considered expedient and proper, but 
it was believed to be, in one sense, a fulfillment of 
prophecy. At that early day it was a prevalent 
opinion that the American Indians were the de- 
scendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. There 
were numerous prophecies concerning these, not a 
few of the prophecies suiting the convenience and 
the comfortable establishment of the Puritan set- 
tlers. Speaking of the Israelitish origin of the 
American Indians, Cotton Mather is very ingen- 
ious in drawing parallels between the Hebrew peo- 
ple of the dispersion and the Indians, showing how 
many traits they had in common. Eliot, the apos- 
tle to the Indians, is described as interesting him- 
self in the fortunes of the American savages large- 
ly with a view to co-operate with the spirit of the 
prophecies recorded in the Old Testament. Cot- 
ton Mather, in his " Magnalia," writes of Eliot as 
follows : 

Moreover, it is a prophecy in Deuteronomy xxviii. 68: " The 
Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way 
whereof I spoke vmto thee, thou shalt see it no more again ; and 
there shall ye be sold unto your enemies, . . . and no man 
shall buy you." This did our Eliot imagine accomplished when 
the captives taken by us in our late wars upon them were sent 
to be sold in the coasts lying not very remote from Egypt on 
the Mediterranean Sea, and scarcely any chapmen would offer 
to take them off." (" Magnalia," Vol. I., p. 561.) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



61 



The method of proceeding in this exchange of 
Indian captives for " Moors " is not always defined, 
but the fact that Indian prisoners were sold into 
slavery abroad is found recorded in many papers 
of the colonial history. We are indebted to the 
historian of Massachusetts slavery for this account : 

At the time of King Philip's War, the policy and practice of 
the Colony of Massachusetts, with regard to slavery, had been 
already long settled upon the basis of positive lav, According- 
ly the numerous " captives taken in war " were disposed of in 
the usual way. The notes which follow are mainly from the 
official records of the colony, and will be sufficient to show the 
general current of public opinion and action at that period: 

In August, 1675, the Council at Plymouth ordered the sale 
of a company of Indians, "being men, women, and children, in 
number one hundred and twelve." With a few exceptions, the 
Treasurer made the sale "in the countrye's behalfe." (Ply- 
mouth Records, v., 173.) 

A little later the Council made a similar disposition of fifty- 
seven more [Indians] who " had come in a submissive way." 
These were condemned to perpetual servitude, and the Treas- 
urer was ordered and appointed i; to make sale of them, to and 
for-the use of the colonie, as opportunity may present." (73., 174.) 

The accounts of the Colony of Massachusetts for receipts 
and expenditures during " the late war," as stated from the 25th 
of June, 1675, to the 23d of September, 1676, give among the 
credits the following: 

11 By the following accounts received in or as silver, viz.: 
" Cap.tives : for 188 prisoners at war sold .... 397 13 00 " 

(Plymouth Records, x., 401.) 
There is a peculiar significance in the phrase which occurs 
in the " Records," " Sent away by the Treasurer." It means 
sold into slavery. (Massachusetts Records, v., 58.) 

The statistics of the traffic carried on by the Treasurers can- 
not be accurately ascertained from any sources now at com- 
mand. But great numbers of Philip's people were sold as slaves 
in foreign countries. In the beginning of the war Captain 
Moseley captured eighty, who were confined at Plymouth. In 



62 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



September following one hundred and seventy-eight were put 
on board a vessel commanded by Captain Sprague, who sailed 
from Plymouth for Spain. (Drake, 224. — Notes, p. 35.) 

The biography of Eliot, given by Cotton Mather, 
reveals to us a singular phase of African slavery 
among the Puritans. It can scarcely be credited 
that these people, fugitives from Europe for the 
purpose of serving the Lord, should be so utterly 
negligent and indifferent to the salvation of souls 
committed to their care by Divine Providence. 
The picture given us by Cotton Mather seems to be 
the prototype for all subsequent descriptions of 
slavery in the Southern States. Located in Vir- 
ginia or South Carolina, we might consider the 
horrible degradation of the white slave-holders as 
the cause, but what shall be said in explanation of 
the state of things described in the following pas- 
sage? 

He [Eliot] had long lamented it with a bleeding and burning 
passion, that the English used their negroes but as their horses 
or their oxen, and that so little care was taken about their im- 
mortal souls; he looked upon it as a prodigy that any wearing 
the name of Christians should so much have the heart of devils 
in them as to prevent and hinder the instruction of the poor 
Blackamoors, and confine the souls of their miserable slaves to 
a destroying ignorance, merely for fear of thereby losing the 
benefit of their vassalage; but now he made a motion to the 
English within two or three miles of him, that at such a time 
and place they would send their negroes once a week unto 
him ; for he would then catechise them and enlighten them to 
the utmost of his power in the things of their everlasting peace. 
However, he did not live to make much progress in this under- 
taking. (" Magnalia," Vol. I., p. 576.) 

If this paragraph had been written concerning 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 63 



some benevolent man whose pity was stirred by 
the heathenish ignorance of the negro slaves in 
Virginia or South Carolina, it would not excite 
very great surprise. The old cavalier of the sev- 
enteenth century — that is, the American represent- 
ative of the stock — did not care for his own soul; 
why should he be concerned about the religious 
welfare of his slaves? But here we have a relig- 
ious people -par excellence. They are the types of 
devotion to the gospel, as they are pioneers, guides, 
living embodiments of all goodness and all great- 
ness; and yet one of their own historians, in the 
year of grace 1695, declares that the Massachu- 
setts slave-holders '"used their negroes as their 
horses or their oxen," and cared not for their souls ! 
Verily, there were some shadows in the picture 
drawn by their own painters, and it was not all 
sunshine among the " Pilgrim Fathers ! " 

From this description of African slavery, as it ex- 
isted in Massachusetts in the seventeenth century, 
let us turn to the statute books to determine what 
the legal status of the institution was. We have 
already seen that the first venture in the African 
slave-trade was made from Boston, in a Massachu- 
setts ship, and by and for the account of the colo- 
ny as a slave-trader. Buying wherever conven- 
ient, and exchanging captive Indians for Africans 
wherever possible, the business prospered under 
the sanction of common custom, and w r as thorough- 
ly protected by all necessary legislation. We 
come now to a new chapter in the history of New 



64 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



England. Massachusetts again claims pre-emi- 
nence, in that she was the first colony to establish 
African slavery by law. In other portions of the 
continent the custom of the times was a common 
law upon the subject. Mr. Moore says: 

The first statute establishing slavery in America is to be 
found in the famous Code of Fundamentals, or Body of Lib- 
erties of the Massachusetts Colony in New England — 
the first code of laws of that colon}-, adopted in December, 1641. 
These liberties had been, after a long struggle between the 
magistrates and the people, extracted from the reluctant grasp 
of the former. (" Notes," p. 11.) 

We shall not turn aside to examine the contro- 
versy concerning the phraseology employed by 
the slave-holders of Massachusetts in making their 
record. Calling special attention to the date A.D. 
1641, we copy the statute and the explanatory re- 
marks of Mr. Moore: 

Liberties of Forreiners and Strangers. 
91. There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or cap- 
tivitie amongst us unless it be lawfull captives taken in just 
warres, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are 
sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian 
usages which the law of God established in Israel concerning 
such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from 
servitude who shall be Judged thereto by Authoritie. (" Notes," 
p. 12.) 

In elucidation of this statute Mr. Moore says: 

The law must be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous 
facts of history. At the time it was made (1641) what had its 
authors to provide for? 

1. Indian slaves — their captives taken in war. 

2. Negro slaves — their own importations of ''strangers," ob- 
tained by purchase or exchange. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



65 



3. Criminals — condemned to slavery as a punishment for of- 
fenses. 

Thus stood the statute through the whole colonial period, 
and it was never expressly repealed. Based on the Mosaic code, 
it is an absolute recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, 
and of the right of one man to sell himself as well as that of 
another man to buy him. It sanctions the slave-trade and the 
perpetual bondage of Indians and negroes, their children and 
their children's children, and entitles Massachusetts to prece- 
dence over any and all other colonies in similar legislation. It 
anticipates by many years any thing of the sort to be found in the 
statutes of Virginia, or Maryland, or South Carolina, and nothing 
like it is to be found in the contemporary codes of her sister 
colonies in New England. (" Notes," p. 18.) 

Mr. George H. Moore, Librarian of the New 
York Historical Society, of whom George Ban- 
croft testifies that he is helping " to make Ameri- 
can history what it ought to be," has undertaken 
the task of excavating the truth of New England 
story. Lying under a superincumbent mass of 
rubbish, fiction, fancy, and rhetoric, the task of 
delving into genuine sources has been beset with 
formidable difficulties. By his aid, however , we 
are able to obtain some psychological materials, 
and they form conducting threads that lead us 
through the maze of that wonderful labyrinth, 
" New England sentiment." 

We have seen the slave-trade exploited, found 
profitable, and established by law in Massachusetts, 
as early as 1641. When was it abolished? Upon 
that subject in the State of Virginia, for example, 
common history gives us line upon line of record. 
As early as 1774 the people of a large and intelli- 
5 



66 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



gent county petitioned for the suppression of the 
African slave-trade. Hanover County could not 
prevail, however, not because of the prejudices of 
the colonists, but on account of the ro}^al interest 
in the profitable traffic. But when the popular 
voice formed a government and chose an untram- 
meled Legislature, at the instance of Thomas Jef- 
ferson, in 1778, the State of Virginia abolished the 
African slave-trade. 

Where was John Adams, and what were the 
law-makers of Massachusetts doing in this behalf? 
Early in the seventies the General Court passed 
the necessary bills, but the royal Governor " dis- 
allowed " them. This was in 1774. The next 
year the war began, and in 1776 the colonies were 
declared " free and independent States." The 
negroes of Massachusetts begged to be remem- 
bered in the general deliverance. To fight for lib- 
erty for the whites, and at the same time to retain 
the negro population in a state of slavery, was de- 
clared incongruous and unworthy of a proud com- 
monwealth. Nevertheless, Mr. Moore tells us: 
" Sympathy for the slave, and moral scruples 
against slavery, became less urgent and trouble- 
some after the royal negative had become power- 
less against the legislation of the people of Massa- 
chusetts." In point of fact, nothing was done, 
and the African slave-trade was still recognized by 
law in Massachusetts ten years after it had been 
abolished in Virginia! One of the most curious 
documents in this eventful history is the paper of 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 67 



instructions given by respectable merchants in 
Massachusetts to the captain of their slave-ship. 
The date of this paper is November 12, 1785, sev- 
en years after Virginia had abolished the traffic ! 

At last, in 1788, an act was passed for the aboli- 
tion of the slave-trade. A significant proviso ex- 
plains itself without a word of comment: 4 'Pro- 
vided, That this act do not extend to vessels which 
have already sailed, their ovjners, factors, or com- 
manders, for , and during their -present voyage, or 
to any insurance that shall have been made j previ- 
ous to the passing of the same" Here we have a 
distinct recognition of the fact that vessels were 
still engaged in this nefarious traffic. The people 
of Virginia were compelled for their own safety to 
move with caution, and if they attempted to eman- 
cipate their slaves, by the most imperious of all con- 
siderations — self-preservation — they were obliged 
to act by slow degrees. Yet the people of Virginia 
anticipated the Puritans of Massachusetts by ten 
years in the abolition of the slave-trade. No col- 
ors have been too dark to paint the depravity of 
the ' ' slave - drivers " of the ' ' Old Dominion." 
What shall we say of those of Massachusetts ? 

In 1645 Mr. Edward Downing had arrived at 
the conclusion that "20 Moors" could be main- 
tained for the sum required to take care of a white 
servant. This enthusiastic view of the subject did 
not prevail among his fellow-citizens. Before the 
end of the century it w r as discovered that African 
slavery, however profitable it might be under cer- 



6S 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



tain circumstances, was not at all adapted to the 
general prosperity of the colony. The Puritans 
were excellent judges of "gayneful pilladge." 
Whether the supply of captives for exchange had 
given out. or the increasing population rendered 
increased thrift and industry with the quickest of 
wits necessary — however the case may be, one 
fact is beyond dispute: it was discovered that Af- 
rican slavery was not the best form of human labor 
to be employed in Massachusetts. This discovery 
is clearly exhibited in an essay in 1706. The title 
is: " Computation that the importation of negroes 
is not so profitable as that of white servants.' ? It 
appeared in the Boston Xeius-Letter* Xo. 112, June 
10. 1706. The arguments produced in this essay 
will throw a flood of light over several passages of 
the history of Xew England. We copy a portion 
of the article : 

By last vear's Bill of Mortality for the Town of Boston, in 
Number 100 News-Letter, we are furnished with a list of 44 
Negroes dead last vear, which being computed one with anoth- 
er at 30/. per Head, amounts to the Sum of One Thousand three 
hundred and Twentv Pounds, of which Ave would make this 
remark: That the importing of Negroes into this or the Neigh- 
boring Provinces is not so beneficial either to the Crown or 
Countv as White Servants would be. 

For Negroes do not carry Arms to defend the country as 
Whites do. 

Negroes are generally Eye-Servants, great Thieves, much 
addicted to Stealing. Lying and Purloining. 

Thev do not People our Country as Whites would do where- 
bv we should be strengthened against an enemy. 

By Encouraging the Importing of White Men Servants, allow- 
ing somewhat to the Importer, most Husbandmen in the Coun- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



6 9 



try might be furnished with Servants for S, 9, or 10/. a Head, who 
are not able to launch out 40 or 50/. for a Negro, the now com- 
mon Price. 

A man then might buy a White Man Servant we suppose for 
10/. to serve 4 years, and Boys for the same price to serve 6, 8, 
or 10 years; If a White Servant die, the loss exceeds not 10/. 
but if a Negro dies, 'tis a very great loss to the Husbandman; 
Three years' Interest of the price of the Negro will near upon, 
if not altogether, purchase a White Man Servant. 

And here you see that in one year the To ay n of Boston has 
lost 1320/. by 44 Negroes, which is also a loss to the country in 
general, and for a less loss (if it may be improperly so called) 
for a 1000/. the Country may have 500 Men in 5 years time for 
the 44 Negroes dead in one year. 

A certain person within these 6 years had two Negroes dead 
computed both at 60/. which would have procured him six white 
Servants at 10/. per head to have served 24 years, at 4 years 
apiece, without running such a great risque, and the whites 
would have strengthened the country, that Negroes do not. 
("Notes," p. 107.) 

This is said to be the first argument that ap- 
peared in the newspapers against the slave-trade. 
It is instructive, too, that this "argument" con- 
tains not a thought or a suggestion that touches 
any question of the negro's welfare. It was sim- 
ply a matter of dollars and cents. Fifty years be- 
fore, it seemed a matter of economy to buy slaves 
and work them vigorously. Now there was a 
change of policy. Negroes had a habit of dying 
at times inconvenient for their owners, and when 
a negro was dead the money invested in him went 
to the bottom of the sea. Work must be done, 
and somebody must do it; therefore, instead of 
buying slaves for life, taking care of them in sick- 
ness and during old age, it was found cheaper to 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



buy the slave with a white skin and to buy him for 
a term of years, so that after the best of his work- 
ing days had been sold for a song he could be 
turned out in his latter days to shift for himself. 
This philosophy was too self-evident to allow its 
passing into oblivion. Nothing was done in the way 
of resolutions, town meetings, agitation bureaus, 
and the like, but the well-advised Boston man 
bought his white servants when he could get them, 
and shipped his negroes to Virginia, with a return 
cargo of tobacco in exchange. If he had stopped 
there, it might have been better for the honor of the 
colony. But the thrifty captain of the slave-trad- 
ing ship knew just when and where to take a car- 
go of New England men to the coast of Africa, 
and either by force or fraud the delighted skipper 
returned to his owners with a comfortable balance 
of West India produce or yellow coins acquired in 
the " gainful pillage." 

So little thought had the Massachusetts people 
of any moral question involved that they turned a 
deaf ear to the cries of the negroes themselves, 
after the Revolutionary War and when the Legis- 
lature had no royal vetoes to lay embargoes upon 
their actions. From the following petition to the 
Legislature sent up by the poor negroes of Massa- 
chusetts we have a pitiful appeal and an accurate 
picture of their treatment in 1780: 

We being chiefly of African extract, and by reason of long 
bondage and hard slavery, we have been deprived of enjoying 
the profits of our labor or the advantages of inheriting estates 
from our parents, as our neighbors the white people do, having 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



71 



some of us not long enjoyed our own freedom ; jet of late, con- 
trary to the invariable custom and practice of the country, we 
have been, and now are, taxed both in our polls and that small 
pittance of estate which, through much hard labor and indus- 
try, we have got together to sustain ourselves and families 
withal. We apprehend it, therefore, to be hard usage, and will 
doubtless, if continued, reduce us to a state of beggary, where- 
by we shall become a burden to others, if not timely prevented 
by the interposition of your justice and power. 

Your petitioners further show that we apprehend ourselves 
to be aggrieved in that, -while we are not allowed the privilege of 
freemen of the State, having ?to vote or influence in the election of 
those who tax us, yet many of our color, as is well known, have 
cheerfully entered the field of battle in the defense of the com- 
mon cause, and that, as we conceive, against a similar exertion 
of power (in regard to taxation) too well known to need recital 
in this place. 

We most humbly request, therefore, that you would take our 
unhappy case into your serious consideration, and, in your wis- 
dom and power, grant us relief from taxation while under our 
present depressed circumstances. Notes,''' p. 196.) 

If the complaint of these negroes was well- 
founded, their destitution must have been very- 
great. But they were neither relieved from taxa- 
tion nor assisted in any way whatever, for as late 
as 1795, Mr. Moore tells us, "the status of the 
negro was by no means definitely determined." 
Some authorities asserted that negroes could nei- 
ther vote nor hold office. Dr. Belknap says : " In- 
stances of the election of a black to any public of- 
fice are very rare." So rare, indeed, that Dr. 
Belknap could only cite one instance in which a 
mulatto held the office of town clerk. This soli- 
tary instance had ceased to exist, as the man was 
dead at the time Dr. Belknap wrote. 



CHAPTER IV. 



No Free State in 1790 — Tinkering with the Census — Humiliat- 
ing Statement — Disappearance of the Negroes — Advertise- 
ments of Slaves for Sale in Boston — Sources of New England 
Ideas — Slavery Never Abolished in Massachusetts — Owners 
Discouraged from Manumission — Pitiful Spectacle — Massa- 
chusetts and South Carolina Contrasted — Negroes Not Al- 
lowed to Exercise Useful Trades in Massachusetts in 1844 — 
Negroes Banished from Massachusetts — Notice to Leave — ■ 
Repeal of the Banishment Act — Agitation Begun — Bishop 
Emory — Agitation in Congress — Votes in the House of Rep- 
resentatives — Party Lines Foreshadowed — Morality of the 
Abolition Movement — Anecdote of the Elder Adams — Status 
of the Negro in Massachusetts in 1844 — Dr. Simpson's State 
Petitions for African Slavery — Petition Denied and Renewed 

— John Randolph's Advice — Indiana Petition Again — Did Dr. 
Simpson Know These Things? — An Eloquent Bishop's Op- 
portunity — Points Proved. 

There is a more humiliating feature in this his- 
tory. It is given in the "Appendix" of 
Moore's " Notes. " It is well known that the cen- 
sus of 1790 placed Massachusetts as the solitary 
" free State." Not a slave was reported as exist- 
ing in the commonwealth. Notwithstanding this 
fact, however, there were slaves in Massachusetts 
at that time. In a work entitled 66 Travels through 
the United States " the Duke de la Rochefoucault 
Liancourt says: " It is to be observed that in 1778 
the general census of Massachusetts included 18,- 
000 slaves, while the subsequent census of 179° 
only exhibits 6,000 blacks." Here we have a de- 
(72) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



73 



crease from 18,000 to 6,000 in twelve years, and 
the afflarent abolition of slavery in the meantime, 
as the 6 ' slaves" in 1776 are called simply "blacks " 
in 1790. But no man has found the record of any 
act of emancipation by which these slaves were set 
free. The ingenious method by which slavery was 
eliminated from the census of Massachusetts is 
told in the " Life of Belknap:" 

The following anecdote connected with this subject, it is be- 
lieved, has never been made public. In 1790 a census was or- 
dered by the general government, then newly established, and 
the Marshal of the Massachusetts District had the care of mak- 
ing the survey. When he inquired for slaves, most people an- 
swered none; if any one said that he had one, the Marshal 
would ask him if he meant to be singular, and would tell him 
that no other person had given in any. The answer then was, 
" If none are given in, I will not be singular; " and thus the list 
was completed without any number in the column for slaves. 
(" Notes," p. 247.) 

We doubt whether a parallel fact can be found 
in the history of any people outside of New En- 
gland. Officers of the government are sworn to 
discharge their duties honestly and justly, and yet 
here is the admission that a sworn officer made it 
his business to corrupt and falsify the records of 
the State ! And the " anecdote " is given without 
a word of censure for the perjured officer ! 

The decrease from 18,000 to 6,000 blacks is 
easily accounted for. There were hundreds of 
plantations from Virginia to Georgia in which 
these unhappy negroes would find congenial com- 
pany and merciful treatment as slaves, and the care 
and curse of them was transferred from Massachu- 



74 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



setts consciences to those of the hopelessly de- 
praved " slave-drivers ' ? of the South, while the 
white-souled Puritan pocketed the " gainful pil- 
lage" in the shape of the market price for his 
" human chattels." 

Mr. Moore gives a number of advertisements of 
negro slaves for sale in the town of Boston, and 
some as late as 1781. A marked feature of these 
slave advertisements is the reason assigned for sell- 
ing the property. " Want of employ " is, in most 
cases, the cause, and it is significant of the relation 
sustained by the negro to the white man in New 
England. A few farmers excepted, there were no 
persons who could employ negro slaves to advan- 
tage. They were excluded from all the trades as 
a matter of course. They were shut up to one 
source of obtaining a living if they were free, 
and as slaves there was but one species of work 
in which their masters could use them. Farming 
was rapidly becoming one of the crowded occupa- 
tions of the country; and to keep up with the prog- 
ress of the age, the farmer had to employ the 
very best "help" that could be found. Ne- 
groes could not and would not do as much work 
as white men, and they did not do even the inferior 
amount of work as well as white men could do it. 
The prevailing distinction of " caste " was strong- 
er in Massachusetts than it was anywhere else on 
the continent, and hence white men would not 
work in the same field with the negro, nor would 
they allow any kind of " fellowship " as workmen. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



75 



The farmer employing labor was compelled to 
take his choice, and go into the untrammeled mar- 
ket of supply, or struggle on with his few slaves, 
half of whom were unfit by reason of age for field 
work. The result was evident. The Massachu- 
setts negro slave was shipped to town and put up 
on the block, if the enterprising farmer could not 
commission a salesman for a trip 6 i down South." 
Let us take some examples of slave-selling in Bos- 
ton : 

[From the Independent Chronicle, March 30, 17S0.] 
To be sold very cheap, for no other reason than for want of 
employ, an exceedingly active Negro Boy, aged fifteen. Also 
a likely Negro Girl, aged seventeen. 

[From the Continental Journal, January 4, 17S1.] 
To be sold, a hearty, strong Negro Wexch, about twenty- 
nine years of age, fit for town or country. 

[From the same paper, November 25, 1779.] 
To be sold, a likely Negro Girl, sixteen years of age, for no 
fault but want of emplov. 

[From the same paper, March 9, 17S0.] 
To be sold, for want of employment, an exceeding likely Ne- 
gro Girl, aged sixteen. 

Two other advertisements will challenge the an- 
nals of slavery for their parallel : 

[From the Independent Chronicle, December 28, 1780.] 
A Negro Child, soon expected, of a good breed, may be owned 
by any person inclining to take it. and money with it. 

[From the Continental Journal, March 1, 17S1.] 

To be sold, an extraordinary likely Negro Wexch, seven- 
teen years old. She can be warranted to be strong, healthy, 
and good-natured, has no notion of freedom, has been always used 
to a farmer's kitchen and dairy, and is not known to have anv 
failing, but being with child, which is the only cause of her be- 
ing sold. 

Many revolting circumstances were connected 



76 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



with African slavery, even in the Southern States, 
where the poor negro has found more humane 
treatment than he has known in any other country 
in Christendom. Never did the sober, conserva- 
tive judgment of the Southern people look upon 
the institution in any other light than that of a dif- 
ficult problem, which could be solved only by a 
providential deliverance. That slave labor was 
more expensive than free labor was the conviction 
of intelligent men in every section of the South, 
and it will be our purpose to show that gradual 
emancipation was rapidly becoming the policy of 
the Southern States when the rabid fanaticism of 
New England interfered and made the experiment 
of loosing the bonds of the African a standing 
threat and a perpetual reminder of the fate of the 
white race in San Domingo. 

But nowhere in the States of the South have we 
seen a condition of things that would have pro- 
duced two of the advertisements we have quoted 
from the Boston newspapers. The separation of 
parents and children was sometimes inevitable, but 
it was a comparatively rare occurrence, and sel- 
dom, we believe, solely for mercenary motives. 
Slave-holders have bought negroes that they did 
not want, and have sold those that they did not 
wish to sell, in order to preserve the ties of the 
family relation. If an accurate census could 
be taken, we believe that the number of divorces 
among the negroes at the present time ex- 
ceeds the cases of separation between husband 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



77 



and wife in the former state of servitude. Be this 
as it may, the moral sense of a # community that 
was not shocked by such a display of heartless 
cruelty and meanness as the selling of an unborn 
child, parting it from its mother, and shifting the 
burden to any mercenary creature that might be 
induced to take such a helpless infant for a sum of 
money, requires the invention of a new form of 
speech to describe it. 

Do not these advertisements point to the source 
from which were derived the pictures of chains 
and tortures, of whips and scourges, and inhuman 
cruelties perpetrated in the South upon the negro 
slave ? These " horrors of slavery " were kept be- 
fore the eyes of the New r England boy and girl be- 
fore they were able to spell and pronounce the 
names of the detestable slave-holding States. 
Here at the fountain head of the abolition agitation, 
at the center of action, preparation, and propa- 
gandism, were the required materials. The very 
fortunes acquired in the unholy slave-trade became 
responsible for the funds needed to carry on 66 the 
irrepressible conflict. ' ' A monopoly of manufactur- 
ing cotton goods was swelling into millions the fort- 
unes of the factory owners, while, according to 
abolition rhetoric, they were using the cotton that 
sympathizing nature ought to have painted with 
the tint of carmine to remind the world of the price 
of blood that was paid for its production. 

We have seen that African slavery was estab- 
lished by law in the Colony of Massachusetts as 



7 8 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



early as 1641. It has never been abolished by any 
act of the Legislature of Massachusetts. Precise- 
ly when the last slave was claimed, and his labor 
exacted without wages, we do not know. It is 
certain that the act of 1788, which prohibited the 
slave-trade, did not abolish slavery in Massachu- 
setts. From time to time, when any negro slave 
was able to pay a lawyer's fee, and could institute 
a legal suit for his freedom, the case was decided 
in his favor by the courts. But so little interest 
was felt for the welfare of the negro that a con- 
clusive act of emancipation was never passed by 
the Legislature of Massachusetts. 

The laws of the State, however, did throw a 
number of discouragements in the way of manu- 
mission by the owner. He was compelled to give 
" bond and security" that the freedman would not 
become chargeable to the State. Pauperism was 
increasing; and when a slave became a freedman, 
he lost at once his master and his home. Old age 
overtaking him without property and without filial 
care upon which to depend, the poor-house was 
his home until the grave was ready to receive him. 
Against this charge of the paupers the community 
protested. Six thousand blacks in 1790 presented 
fearful probabilities of a large supply of paupers. 
They could not ' 6 lay up in store against a rainy 
day," for they could barely supply the day's wants 
by means of the day's labor. When sickness and 
old age came, there was a gloomy prospect for the 
poor discarded slave. But his master, anxious to 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



79 



get rid of him in his declining years, encouraged a 
" suit for freedom/* provoked and invited it, be- 
cause in that case the freedman's status, being de- 
fined by a process at law, forever relieved his for- 
mer master of all liability for his maintenance. 
The State gave the negro liberty, and was in duty 
bound to keep him from starving to death. 

Nevertheless, the State was as narrow and cruel 
as the master who sought to get rid of the ^un- 
profitable servant." A famous case in the annals 
of Massachusetts was decided in 1806: 

It relates to the settlement of a negro pauper who had been 
a slave as early as 1757, and passed through the hands of nine 
separate owners before 1775. From the ninth he absconded, 
and enlisted in the Massachusetts army among the eight 
months' men, at Cambridge, in the beginning of the Revolu- 
tionarv War. His term of service had not expired when he was 
again sold, in July, 1776, to another citizen of Massachusetts, 
with whom he lived about five weeks, when he enlisted in the 
three years' service, and his last owner received the whole of 
his bounty and part of his wages. 

Edom London, for such was the name of this revolutionary 
patriot in 1S06, was " poor," and had k - become chargeable " to 
the town in which he resided. That town magnanimously 
struggled through all the courts, from the justice's court up to 
the supreme court of the commonwealth, to shift the responsi- 
bility for the maintenance and support of the old soldier from 
itself to one of the numerous other towns in which he had so- 
journed from time to time as the slave of his eleven masters. 
The attempt was unsuccessful. (" Xotes," p. 19.) 

In contrast with the conduct of this common- 
wealth of the Puritans, let us see what the benight- 
ed State of South Carolina did in the way of rec- 
ognizing and rewarding meritorious action among 
the negroes. 



8o 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



In the year 1789 two negroes in South Carolina 
distinguished themselves by discovering specific 
remedies for the bite of a rattlesnake. The negroes 
are known by the simple but illustrious names of 
Caesar and Sampson . With the roots of the plantain 
and wild hoarhound Cassar made an excellent reme- 
dy; and his fellow-slave, Sampson, compounded 
of snakeroot and " the herb arens " — whatever 
that may be — an infallible plaster for the wound, 
while the patient swallowed a mixture of " snake- 
root and polypody/' These humble slaves, whose 
names have not been mentioned among the ar- 
chives of the faculty as benefactors of mankind, 
were nevertheless noticed and rewarded by the 
Legislature of South Carolina. That 6 ' barbarian ' ' 
body actually bought the freedom of both the 
slaves, gave them their liberty and a life annuity 
of £100 each ! 

But the State of Massachusetts, leaving her 
slave-holders to grow by degrees out of the incon- 
veniences of the institution, was not only engaged 
in a hand to hand struggle to avoid the support of 
negro paupers, but she absolutely determined, at 
one and the same time, to prevent any more ne- 
groes from coming to the State, while she gave 
several hundred negro residents notice to quit her 
territory. Dr. Belknap, the historian, in 1795 de- 
clared that " unless liberty be reckoned a compen- 
sation for many inconveniences and hardships, the 
former condition of the slaves was in most cases 
preferable." Liberty is an excellent thing in its 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 8l 

place, but is a man free when he is denied the priv- 
ilege of earning his bread in the calling for which 
he is best fitted? Who could call a negro carpen- 
ter a freeman, when in the city of Boston he was 
forbidden to exercise his trade because he was a 
colored man? In all honesty and sincerity let us 
look at the naked facts in the case. 

In 1844, when the four New England Confer- 
ences declared that Bishop Andrew should not 
preside over them because he was a slave-holder, 
no negro mechanic, taught by his Southern master, 
would have been allowed to exercise his calling in 
Boston ! 

This proposition is so startling that we expect to 
meet the grave questionings of the reader. But 
the records are at hand, and the story which they 
tell cannot be denied or defended. 

The same Legislature that passed the act to 
abolish the slave-trade, in 1788, also passed "An 
act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vaga- 
bonds, common Beggars, and other idle, disorder- 
ly, and lewd Persons," wherein we find this ex- 
traordinary provision : 

Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no per- 
son being an African or negro, other than a subject of the Em- 
peror of Morocco, or a citizen of someone of the United States 
(to be evidenced by a certificate from the Secretary of the State 
of which he shall be a citizen), shall tarry within this common- 
wealth for a longer time than two months, and upon complaint 
made to any justice of the peace within this commonwealth, 
that any such person has been within the same more than two 
months, the said justice shall order the said person to depart 
out of this commonwealth, and in case that the said African or 
6 



82 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



negro shall not depart as aforesaid, any justice of the peace 
within this commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made 
that such person has continued within this commonwealth ten 
days after notice given him or her to depart as aforesaid, shall 
commit said person to any house of correction within the coun- 
ty, there to be kept to hard labor, agreeable to the rules and or- 
ders of the said house, until the Sessions of the Peace, next to 
be holden within and for the said county; and the master of the 
said house of correction is hereby required and directed to 
transmit an attested copy of the warrant of commitment to the 
said court on the first day of their said session, and if upon trial 
at the said court it shall be made to appear that the said person 
has thus continued within this commonwealth, contrary to the 
tenor of this act, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding te7i stripes, 
and ordered to depart out of this common-wealth within ten days; 
and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process shall be 
had and punishment inflicted, and so toties quoties. (" Notes," 
p. 228.) 

The subtle irony concealed in this legislative 
act will be perceived when we observe that 
when the negro race was banished from Massa- 
chusetts two classes only were excepted. The 
first class were the subjects of the "Emperor of 
Morocco." That high-handed pirate had capt- 
ured sea-faring men from New England, and in 
his miserable dungeons in Northern Africa there 
were scores of white American citizens languish- 
ing in slavery. To keep the " Emperor of Moroc- 
co " in good humor the State of Massachusetts al- 
lowed the subjects of that potentate to reside in the 
land of the Pilgrims ! 

The other exception was the ' 6 citizen of some one 
of the United States," and to prove that he was a 
citizen the fact must be 66 evidenced by a certifi- 
cate from the Secretary of the State of which he 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 83 



shall be a citizen." Inasmuch as African slavery 
existed in every State in the American Union at 
that time, it was simply absurd to call for a certifi- 
cate of citizenship for any negro in the United 
States. There was not a negro citizen in America, 
and therefore compliance with the requirements of 
the law was absolutely impossible. 

Pursuant to the statute made in March, the Su- 
perintendent of Police issued the following notice 
in September, 1788: 

Notice to Blacks. 

The Officers of Police having made return to the subscriber 
of the names of the following persons, who are Africans or ne- 
groes, not subjects of the Emperor of Morocco nor citizens of 
the United States, the same are hereby warned and directed to 
depart out of this commonwealth before the ioth day of Octo- 
ber next, as they would avoid the pains and penalties of the law 
in that case provided, which was passed by the Legislature 
March 26, 1788. Charles Bulfinch, Suft. 

By order and direction of the Selectmen. 

The names of 165 negroes follow, only 16 of 
these being natives of the Southern States. In 
addition to the negroes, 78 Indians and mulattoes 
received notice to leave the State at once. No 
crime is alleged, no offense, except their presence 
in the State. They were " not wanted." 

Thus the law stood in 1820, when the Legisla- 
ture was again called upon to remedy the state of 
things consequent upon the increase of negro crim- 
inals in Massachusetts. In the State prison there 
was one negro for 146^ of the negro population, 
while the whites furnished but one criminal for 



34 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



2,140 white inhabitants. That is about the pro- 
portion that exists in the prisons of the South at the 
present time, but " circumstances alter cases." 
The wise men of Massachusetts could not solve the 
problem, and the law of 1788 was left upon the 
statute book. 

The great tariff issue of 1828 swallowed up all 
minor considerations in New England; and as 
South Carolina, by courageous and pertinacious op- 
position to this measure, became the target for the 
restless energy of New England philanthropists, 
the great abolition agitation began in 1832; and 
inasmuch as the banishment law of Massachusetts 
was a glaring witness to the insincerity of the pre- 
tense that this movement was designed for the 
benefit of the African race, the law was repealed 
in 1834. 

Perhaps one of the chief factors in this repeal 
was the enlistment of the New England preachers 
in the abolition movement. England had paid 
about twenty millions sterling to her West India 
slave-holders, and the negroes were set free. 
Then began the period of decadence and ruin 
that has rendered the West India Islands almost 
useless to the world at large. The commerce of 
Jamaica in one year, a hundred years ago, ex- 
ceeded the trade of all the English possessions in 
a decade at the present time. The momentum 
given to the cause of abolition by this event, and 
the repeal of the anti-African statute of Massachu- 
setts, prepared the way for an active canvass. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



85 



The New England Conferences entered upon 
the work of agitation with singular energy and 
effect. In vain did the bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church protest against the bitterness 
and the unchristian temper in which the campaign 
was carried on in the Eastern Conferences. Bish- 
op Emory found it necessary to interpose, and he 
made an earnest effort to arrest the movement. 
In an address " To the Ministers and Preachers of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church within the New 
England and New Hampshire Annual Confer- 
ences " the bishop says: 

We have marked with deep solicitude the painful excitement 
which, in some parts of your section of our charge, has been 
producing disturbance on the subject of the immediate abolition 
of slavery in the slave-holding States. We are happy at the 
same time to be able to say that, having now, between us, at- 
tended all the Northern and Eastern Conferences as far as 
Troy, inclusive, we have found no such excitement, of any mo- 
ment, within any of them except yours; and even within yours 
we know that a large and highly respectable portion of your- 
selves, with, we are inclined to think, a majority of our mem- 
bers and friends, greatly disapprove and deplore the existing 
agitation on this question. That a large majority of our preach- 
ers and people within those of the non-slave-holding States 
generally, to which our recent visitations have extended, are 
decidedly opposed to the modern measures of immediate aboli- 
tionists, we are well assured ; and, believing as we do, that these 
measures have already been productive of pernicious results, 
and tend to the production of others yet more disastrous, both 
in the Church and in the social and political relations of the 
country, we deem it our duty to address to you a pastoral letter 
on the subject. (" Life of Emory," p. 279.) 

Here the bishop distinctly makes the charge that 
the New England Conferences have disturbed the 



86 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



peace of the Church, and that the vast body of 
Methodists in the United States were decidedly 
opposed to the method and the end proposed by 
the abolitionists. The conservative spirit of the 
address gives greater weight to the following wise 
and salutary caution: 

Enjoying as we do, in common with all our fellow-citizen?, 
the protection of the Constitution of the United States, and the 
inestimable blessings resulting from the general union of the 
States under its happy auspices, are we not bound in conscience 
and honor, while we accept the benefit on one hand, to main- 
tain on the other, in good faith, the fundamental principle- of 
the original compact of union by which each State reserves to 
itself, and has guaranteed to it by all the rest, the exclusive con- 
trol of its internal and domestic affairs: and for which, conse- 
quently, the citizens of other States are no more respon 
than for the domestic regulations under any foreign govern- 
ment? Can we indeed, taking human nature and the established 
laws of intercourse between States and nations as they are. rea- 
sonably suppose that the peace of the country, or even of the 
world, can be preserved on any other principle? (Ibid., p. 279. j 

This is a gentle reminder that ministers of the 
gospel, above all other men. should be law abid- 
ing and law respecting examples to their nocks. 
The Constitution of the country, as the funda- 
mental law of the land, and the law from which 
all other laws proceed, as the stream flows from a 
fountain, when once destroyed, the way to an- 
archy is open, and moral, social, and political ruin 
must follow. 

But the bishop touched upon "the mainspring of 
the abolition movement. The address continues: 

That a deep political game is involved in the present agita- 
tion of this question there are evidences too strong to be re- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN . 



87 



sisted. Will you take it amiss, then, if we warn you against 
being drawn into that vortex, or suffering yourselves to be made 
the instruments of drawing others in? (Ibid., p. 2S0.} 

Three years after this address of Bishop Emory, 
in 1838, Air. Charles G. Atherton, a member of 
Congress from the State of New Hampshire, of- 
fered a series of resolutions in the House of Rep- 
resentatives. The first of these resolutions is as 
follows : 

Resolved, That this government is a government of limited 
powers, and that, by the Constitution of the United States, Con- 
gress has no jurisdiction over the institution of slavery in the 
several States of the Confederacy. 

This resolution passed by 198 yeas to 6 nays, 
4 of the 6 nays being from New England, and one 
of them was John Quincy Adams, an ex-President. 

The second resolution declared that the system- 
atic attempt to flood both houses of Congress with 
petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia and the Territories was ;< a part of 
a plan of operations set on foot to affect the insti- 
tution of slavery in the seyeral States, and thus in- 
directly to destroy that institution within their lim- 
its." This resolution was passed by a yote of 136 
yeas to 65 nays. 

The third resolution was as follows : 

Resolved, That Congress has no right to do that indirectly 
which it cannot do directly ; and that the agitation of the sub- 
ject of slavery in the District of Columbia or the Territories as 
a means, and with a view of disturbing or overthrowing that 
institution in the several States, is against the true spirit and 
meaning of the Constitution, an infringement of the rights of 
the States affected, and a breach of the public faith upon which they 
entered into the Confederacy, 



88 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



This resolution was divided, and the first clause, 
affirming 6 6 that Congress has no right to do that 
indirectly which it cannot do directly/' was passed 
by 179 yeas to 30 nays. Among the nays we find 
the names of nearly three-fourths of the members 
from New England. So uncompromising was their 
opposition to the Southern States that they were 
willing to vote for an absurd proposition, one that 
no statesman could advocate, and one that was in- 
consistent with any form of human government. 

But the most significant vote in the whole series 
was upon the following propositions: 

1. That the Constitution rests upon the broad principle of 
equality among the members of this Confederacy. Yeas, 180; 
nays, 26. 

2. That Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged pow- 
ers, has no right to discriminate between the institutions of one 
portion of the States and another, with a view of abolishing the 
one and promoting the other. Yeas, 174; nays, 25. 

Of the 26 nays on the first proposition, New 
England furnished 14; and of the 25 on the sec- 
ond, she furnished 16, being one-half of the mem- 
bers of the House from the New England States. 

This party began its operations by setting the 
Constitution at defiance, and it is against this party 
of disorder and disunion that Bishop Emory cau- 
tioned the traveling preachers of the New England 
Conferences. But this episcopal address showed 
that political vandalism was coincident with the 
transgression of the law of love: 

a Speak not evil one of another, brethren," is a sacred precept 

as binding on us. surely, as any other. Now are the strong de- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



8 9 



nunciations, which we have reason to fear are indulged in even 
by some ministers, against portions of their brethren who re- 
side where the laws do not admit of emancipation, without re- 
moval, compatible either with this precept or with that common 
Discipline to which we have solemnly pledged ourselves to con- 
form? (Page 280.) 

But the address makes a declaration that would 
have caused any but the most malignant fanaticism 
to pause and reflect: 

On a review of the whole, we are compelled to express our 
deliberate conviction that nothing has ever occurred so serious- 
ly tending to obstruct and retard, if not absolutely to defeat, the 
cause of emancipation itself; to bring upon the slaves increased 
rigor of treatment and privation of privileges ; to overwhelm 
the multitudes of free colored people in the slave-holding States 
with persecution and banishment; to involve the friends of 
gradual emancipation within those States in injurious and dan- 
gerous suspicions; and, above all, to embarrass all our efforts, 
as well by the regular ministry as by missionary means, to 
gain access to and promote the salvation of both the slave- 
holders and their slaves. (Page 2S1.) 

If the bishop had been disposed to bring the 
question home to the preachers in Massachusetts, 
what a terrible blow could have been delivered bv 
reminding them that a law for the banishment of 
all free negroes had been upon the statute-books 
of Massachusetts for forty-six years, and had been 
repealed less than eighteen months prior to the 
writing'of this address! But the bishop touches a 
very tender nerve, and his polished language does 
not soften the impeachment: 

Were Congress even disposed forthwith and totally to abol- 
ish slavery in the District of Columbia, or the slave-holding 
States within themselves, yet the immediate abolitionists here 
insist, as we understand, that no compensation, in whole or in 



go 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



part, ought to be allowed ; although it is ivell known that a large 
amount of the present property and productive capital of the North- 
ern States has grown from the proceeds of slaves formerly sold by 
Northern citizens to the South; in view of which, if universal im- 
mediate liberation be urged as a moral duty on our part, can we 
be surprised if a question should be made whether there is no 
correlative duty of restitution on the other? In other words, 
if ail the present progeny of slaves thus sold in former years 
ought to be immediately discharged by those into whose hands 
they have come by whatsoever means, whether it is perfectly 
clear that there can be no corresponding obligation in equity 
for the restitution of the entire purchase money, with all its 
increase to the present day, into whatever hands it may have 
come, and through whatever channels? (Page 282.) 

The closing appeal of the bishop proved to be 
but a straw darted against a whirlwind: 

We entreat, therefore, that none of you will take part in 
such measures, or in any others calculated to inflame the public 
mind with angry passions and stir up civil or ecclesiastical strife 
and disunion, in violation of our solemn vows. And if any will 
persist in so doing, whether from the pulpit or otherwise, we 
earnestly recommend to our members and friends everywhere, 
by all lawful and Christian means, to discountenance them in 
such a course. (Page 283.) 

Nevertheless, many preachers entered upon the 
unholy work of sowing dissension and strife. De- 
nunciations were fulminated, and fanatic appeals 
made to every prejudice and passion that would 
serve their purposes. For some of these men we 
have the utmost charity, and for others we have 
compassion. The elder Adams had declared, only 
a few years before this time, that 6 ' this would be 
the best of all possible worlds if there was no re- 
ligion in it." It would be difficult to conceive of 
a worse state of things than the abolitionists of 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



9 1 



New England were capable of creating. For such 
men as John Quincy Adams, for example, we have 
a large measure of charity. He was elected Pres- 
ident of the United States b}' one of those political 
accidents that sometimes wear the face of "bar- 
gain and intrigue," and yet may be brought about 
by a " fortuitous concourse " of events. But when 
we remember the mood in which his father looked 
upon his own political annihilation in iSoo, we 
mingle pity and indignation as acid and alkali unite 
in forming a crystal. 

This anecdote is curious, but instructive: 

December 13, 1803. The Reverend Mr. Coffin, of New En- 
gland, who is now here soliciting donations for a college in 
Greene County, Tenn., tells me that when he first determined 
to engage in this enterprise he wrote a paper recommendatory 
of the enterprise which he meant to get signed by clergymen, 
and a similar one for persons in a civil character, at the head 
of which he wished Mr. Adams to put his name, he being then 
President, and the application going only for his name, and not 
for a donation. Mr. Adams, after reading the paper and con- 
sidering, said he saw no possibility of continuing the union of 
the States; that their dissolution must necessarily take place; 
that he therefore saw no propriety in recommending to Xew 
England men to promote a literary institution in the South; 
that it was in fact giving strength to those who were to be their 
enemies, and therefore he would have nothing to do with it. 
("Jefferson's Correspondence," Vol. IV., p. 516.) 

Most men have a certain kind of admiration for 
a ' ' good hater." Whether the elder x\dams should 
be classed with these pronounced characters is a 
question. But if he could have foreseen that his 
own son, elected President by a compromise of 
candidates, would be ingloriously defeated by a 



9 2 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



man from the State of Tennessee, it is likely that 
his opposition to the literary culture of the South 
would have assumed a more vigorous character. 

These men, the impersonations of selfishness, 
because they are the greatest of fanatics, are in- 
capable of large and generous views of any kind. 
John Adams was defeated by a Southern man, and 
the dissolution of the Union ought to follow as a 
matter of consequence. John Quincy Adams was 
defeated by a Southern man, and the keenest pos- 
sible appetite for revenge distinguished his political 
career. Among men of the world, the children 
of this generation," we look for these and similar 
traits, but surely the gospel of the grace of Christ 
should fashion and train us into a higher type of 
citizenship and a nobler style of civilization. But 
it must be confessed that the bishop's address pro- 
duced but little fruit, at least so far as we can see. 
Certainly there was no good fruit arising from the 
agitation of the question of abolition. "The ul- 
traism of immediate abolitionism has given us 
much trouble in two of the Conferences, and but 
two. I am persuaded it has done immense injury 
to the cause of the blacks themselves." This is 
the language of Bishop Emory at the time of his 
appeal to the conservative men of New England. 
Speaking of this address, Dr. Robert Emory, his 
son and biographer, says: "As it is a masterfy ex- 
position of the pernicious influence of modern ab- 
olitionism upon the colored population themselves, 
and of its inconsistency with the obligations of cit- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



93 



izens of the United States, and members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, it is here given en- 
tire." 

The address was read and forgotten, doubtless, 
by those it was intended to benefit. The mourn- 
ful fate of the unfortunate Bishop Emory, who was 
thrown from his horse and killed a short time after 
writing these affectionate counsels, ought to have 
given additional weight to his words of wisdom. 
But within ten years of his death the two protest- 
ing New England Conferences had grown to four, 
and the •'•'irrepressible conflict" appeared at last 
in the General Conference of the Church in 1844. 

At this very time, when the New England preach- 
ers could not possibly endure a slave-holding bish- 
op, what was the status of the poor Africans whose 
banishment had been recalled on paper, but re- 
mained a memorable reality in Massachusetts? 
Mr. Chickerino\ a Massachusetts author, writing 
in 1846, will tell us about the benefits acruing to 
the negro in New England, after fifteen years of 
abolition agitation, and two years after the division 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church: 

A prejudice has existed in the community, and still exists, 
against them on account of their color, and on account of their 
being the descendants of slaves. They cannot obtain employ- 
ment on equal terms with the whites, and wherever they go a 
sneer is passed upon them, as if this sportive inhumanity were 
an act of merit. Thev have been, and are. mostly servants, or 
doomed to accept such menial employment as the whites de- 
cline. Thev have been, and are. scattered over the common- 
wealth, one or more in over two-thirds of all the towns; they 
continue poor, with small means and opportunities for enjoying 



94 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the social comforts and advantages which are so much at the 
command of the whites. Thus, though their legal rights are 
the same as those of the whites, their condition is one of deg- 
radation and dependence, and renders existence less valuable, 
and impairs the duration of life itself. . . . Owing to their 
color and the prejudice against them, they can hardly be said 
to receive . . - even so cordial a sympathy as would be 
shown them in a slave State, owing to their different position 
in society. (" Chickering's Statistical View," p. 156.) In view 
of these facts, it will hardly be deemed strange that the same 
writer calmly contemplated their extinction as a race, comfort- 
ing himself with the reflection that " many instances of similar 
displacement are to be found in history." (Moore's " Notes," 
p. 223.) 

Now these good brethren of the New England 
Conferences were aware of these facts in 1844. 
They must have known that, while negro slavery 
existed in New England, there were three females 
to one male — an extraordinary state of things, and 
one that bids defiance to the laws deducible from 
vital statistics. They must have known that the 
negro race in New England was kept alive by ref- 
ugees from other States; for in 1850, after sixty 
years, there were fewer native blacks in Massa- 
chusetts than there were black inhabitants in 1790. 
The discrimination against them, the unfriendly 
feelings, and the direct and outspoken antipathies 
of white mechanics closed the doors against the 
negroes, and these New England brethren knew 
all these things. What then? Were they labor- 
ing to destroy the race? Certainly to follow the 
example of Massachusetts would result in the an- 
nihilation of the black species in America. 

Was Dr. Simpson acquainted with the history 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



95 



of the negro race in New England, and did he 
know the record of Massachusetts in particular? 
To deny this proposition is to give him too little 
credit for a broad and comprehensive intellect, 
well furnished with materials of constructive knowl- 
edge. Such minds as that of Dr. Simpson are 
never satisfied with the authority of historians of 
the grade of Palfrey, Ricipath, and Belknap, 
They go to original sources, and are content with 
nothing less. Was Dr. Simpson acquainted with 
the record of his own State of Indiana, the State 
of his residence for many years ? If we could 
think of him as of a man who had strong political 
leanings in his youth, we might infer that the early 
history of Indiana had given him at least a modi- 
fied view of the sin of slavery. 

As early as the 8th of February, 1803, Mr. Will- 
iam Henry Harrison, President of a convention of 
the Territory of Indiana, communicated to the 
United States House of Representatives, through 
the Speaker, the memorial of said convention 
"praying the suspension of the sixth article of 
compact between the United States and the peo- 
ple of that Territory, so as to admit slavery for a 
time therein , together with a petition of the inhab- 
itants of the said Territory to the same effect." 
Read and referred to a committee consisting of 
Messrs. John Randolph, of Virginia; Griswold, of 
Connecticut; Williams, of North Carolina; Mor- 
ris, of Vermont; and Hoge, of Pennsylvania. 

The North Carolinians that Bishop Simpson tells 



9 6 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



us ran away from the old North State to get out 
of the atmosphere of slavery can hardly be charge- 
able with this action of the Indiana population in 
1803. At that time the tide had not begun to flow 
from the land of Raleigh's conquest toward the 
prairies of the great West. 

Let us listen to the report of John Randolph, of 
Virginia, on this proposition to introduce African 
slavery into the Territory of Indiana. The docu- 
ment is worthy of a complete recital: 

That the rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently 
evinces, in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of 
slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement 
of the colonies in that region ; that this labor, demonstrably the 
dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in the culti- 
vation of products more valuable than any known to that quar- 
ter of the United States; that the committee deem it highly 
dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calcu- 
lated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the north- 
western country, and to give strength and security to that ex- 
tensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious 
and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of 
Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration 
for a temporary privation of labor and immigration. From 
such a consideration as they have been enabled to bestow on 
the subject at this late period of the session, and under the 
pressure of accumulating business, they recommend the fol- 
lowing resolution, which is respectfully submitted to the judg- 
ment of the House: 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to suspend, for a limited time, 
the operation of the sixth article of compact between the orig- 
inal States and the States west of the Ohio. 

Thus it appears that a Southern slave-holder 
protected the people of Indiana against themselves, 
and African slavery was excluded from the Con- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



97 



ference territory represented by Bishop Simpson, 

against the unanimous desire of the citizens of the 
territory. 

But the following year (1804), in the first ses- 
sion of the Eighth Congress, the memorial was re- 
newed. In answer to the petition Mr. Rodney, 
of Delaware, offered a report favoring the suspen- 
sion of the anti-slavery article for ten years, and 
giving admission to African slaves born in the 
United States, so that the Territory of Indiana 
might for the time being enjoy the benefits of the 
institution of slavery. But the report was not 
acted upon. 

Again, in 1805, the people came before Con- 
gress with a petition and memorial, praying the 
establishment of slavery in Indiana. The commit- 
tee to whom the memorial was referred made a 
report in favor of granting the prayer of the peti- 
tioners, but no action was taken on the report. 
Not discouraged, however, by repeated and suc- 
cessive failures, the authorities of the Territory 
came before the Congress of the United States 
with an appeal and an argument that would seem 
to be effective. On the 20th of January, 1807, a 
series of resolutions from Indiana were laid before 
the House: 

Resolved unanimously, by the Legislative Council and House 
of Representatives of the Indiana Territory, that a suspension 
of the sixth article of compact between the United States and 
the Territories and States north-west of the river Ohio, passed 
the 13th day of July, 1787, for the term o°f ten years, would be 
highly advantageous to the said Territory, and meet the 

7 



9 8 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



approbation of at least nine-tenths of the good citizens of the 
same. 

Resolved unanimously, That the suspension of the said article 
would be equally advantageous to the Territory, to the States 
from whence the negroes would be brought, and to the negroes 
themselves. 

Resolved unanimously, That the citizens of this part of the 
fo rmer North-western Territory consider themselves as hav- 
ing claims upon the indulgence of Congress, in regard to a sus- 
pension of the said article, because at the time of the adoption 
of the ordinance of 1787, slavery was tolerated, and slaves gen- 
erally possessed by the citizens then inhabiting the country,- 
amounting to at least one-half of the present population of In- 
diana, and because the said ordinance was passed in Congress 
when the said citizens were not represented in that body, with- 
out their being consulted, and without their knowledge and ap- 
probation. 

These resolutions, and others accompanying the 
memorial, were referred to a committee, and a fa- 
vorable report was presented, but not acted upon. 
With this report closes one of the most remarkable 
chapters of American history. Did Dr. Simpson 
have that chapter in mind when he sat silent and 
pensive in the General Conference of 1844? As 
a man of large reading and inclined to independ- 
ent investigation, it was due to himself and to the 
Church at large that from an unprejudiced quarter 
some of these embarrassingf acts should appear upon 
the record of the debate. Such a statement of facts 
would have given variety to a somewhat prosy dis- 
cussion. The Southern men on that occasion 
might have been restrained by a variety of causes, 
chiefly because they were not politicians. There 
was not a man among them who had ever been 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



99 



made the trusted adviser of a President. Not a 
man among them who had assumed the role of an 
ecclesiastical guide through the mazes of that lab- 
yrinth in which politics sanctifies religion, or relig- 
ion sanctifies politics, or they sanctify each other, 
and successful acquisition justifies all things, poli- 
tics and religion combined. 

Those Southern delegates were Methodist preach- 
ers, and they were nothing more. If any man 
among them had made a stump speech, it was Dr. 
Winans; but the memory of that event has per- 
ished, while the grand, massive sermons of the 
Mississippi preacher remain as a monument of his 
greatness. Really Dr. Simpson, who had eclipsed 
the professors in a Western college within two 
months after his introduction to the 66 halls of learn- 
ing," ought to have been well informed and thor- 
oughly prepared to stay the advancing tide that 
was bearing down upon the helpless minority of 
the South. Not a man in that minority represent- 
ed a people who had knocked, and knocked again, 
and a third and fourth time knocked in vain, beg- 
ging that the institution of slavery might be estab- 
lished among them " for the benefit of the negroes 
themselves." 

If the free negroes who were 66 not wanted" in 
Massachusetts could have been transferred to In- 
diana Territory, even as the property of kind mas- 
ters, their condition would have been greatly im- 
proved. 

But why was Dr. Simpson silent in 1844? The 



IOO BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



time had come for the modest but eloquent college 
President to speak forth 66 the words of truth and 
soberness." Never in a life-time does such an oc- 
casion repeat itself. He was the representative of 
a State that had struggled in its infancy against 
many untoward influences; and finally its citizens, 
fearful of being distanced by the Territories around 
them, held out their suppliant hands to the slave- 
holders of the South and begged them to remove 
the barriers that excluded African slavery from the 
rich prairies west of the Ohio. 

What a graphic picture the eloquent Simpson 
could have painted before the General Conference 
of 1844! Indiana stretching out her hands and 
begging for the boon of African slavery, while a 
Southerner and slave-owner stands beseeching her 
to reconsider her request, and w r hile assuring her 
that slave labor was the most costly labor in the 
world, expresses his profound conviction that free 
labor and free institutions would, in no great time, 
build a magnificent empire within the fertile plains 
of Indiana ! No man in that Conference could 
have placed himself with so much grace and pro- 
priety between the advancing hosts of New En- 
gland and the resisting, but overpowered repre- 
sentatives of the South. If we can possibly imagine 
that the New England delegates were unacquaint- 
ed with the history of African slavery in Massa- 
chusetts, Dr. Simpson was the man to unlock the 
treasures of the past, while in fearless conservatism 
he sketched the present attitude of the helpless and 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



IOI 



dishonored freedmen. In strong, graphic, and 
persuasive sentences he could have brought within 
the compass of an hour the statement and the 
proof of these propositions : 

1. That the first ship, the first crew, and the first 
town in America to engage in the African slave- 
trade belonged to New England. 

2. That the only colony in North America that 
in its corporate capacity engaged in the slave-trade 
was the Colony of Massachusetts. 

3. That the only people in America who sold 
captive Indians, through slave-traders, on the coast 
of Africa, and brought negroes into slavery by way 
of exchange, were the people of New England. 

4. That the first law that established African 
slavery in America was the act of the General 
Court of Massachusetts in 1641. 

5. That slavery and the slave-trade flourished 
in Massachusetts just so long as it was believed 
that slave^abor was profitable to the colony, and 
that when the discovery was made that the cost of 
the care of the slave in sickness and old age over- 
balanced the profits to be made out of his service 
in his youth and prime, the institution of slavery 
began to decline, and perished at last by implica- 
tion and not by any act of the Legislature of Mas- 
sachusetts. 

6. That the State of Virginia abolished the Afri- 
can slave-trade in 1778, while Massachusetts trifled 
with the subject from year to year, and finally, in 
1788, followed the example of Virginia. 



102 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



7. That the act which abolished the slave-trade 
did not abolish property in slaves in Massachusetts, 
but left the whole matter in such questionable shape 
that the penniless slave was compelled to sue his 
master for his freedom, if he could beg or borrow 
a sum equal to a lawyer's fee. 

8. That the Legislature that abolished the Afri- 
can slave-trade in the same session banished the 
helpless Africans from the State, and closed the 
territory of Massachusetts to African negroes un- 
der heavy and degrading penalties. 

9. That when the negroes of Massachusetts, 
who had fought for liberty for the whites in the 
Revolutionary War, were reduced to pauperism, 
whole communities struggled with each other in 
the courts of the State, striving to avoid the pay- 
ment of the poor pittance which maintained a rev- 
olutionary patriot in the poor-house. 

10. That by public proclamation more than one 
hundred and sixty negroes, in some instances 
whole families, were banished from th<? State and 
forbidden to return, under the penalty of ten lashes, 
to be administered for every ten davs' residence in 
the State after notice to leave had been given. 

1 1 . That the people of Massachusetts in 1820 de- 
clared that the negroes furnished one criminal for 
every 146^ of their population, while the whites 
had but one for every 2.140 white persons, where- 
upon a legislative committee, after denouncing the 
banishment law of 1788 as a barbarous act, de- 
spaired of finding a better remedy for the evil, and 
the cruel act was allowed to remain until 1834. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN, IO3 

12. That the abolition crusade led to the repeal 
of the African prohibitory law, but the condition 
of the freedmen of Massachusetts, at the time of 
the sitting of the Conference in 1844, was declared 
by New England authorities to be worse than it 
was in the time of slavery. 

We do not suppose that the statement of these 
facts would have altered the position of the New 
England brethren. They had been sent to the 
General Conference with a protest that could not 
be amended, and whatever their individual opin- 
ions might be, they knew the temper of their con- 
stituents. Silas Comfort, of the Oneida Confer- 
ence, felt very confident that there would be no di- 
vision of the Church, even in the event that Bish- 
op Andrew was deposed. " When the word 6 di- 
vision ' was first uttered, it waked up in his bosom 
emotions utterly indescribable and irrepressible. 
These emotions had passed away, and at present 
he could not say he had any apprehension as to the 
unity of the Church; and he believed that, so long 
as the President occupied that chair as senior bish- 
op of the Methodist Episcopal Church he would 
preside in the General Conference of the whole 
Methodist Episcopal Church." 

Mr. Comfort was the prophet of the North, and 
Dr. George F. Pierce of the South. Mr. Comfort 
prophesied that there would be no division, and it 
was provided for within ten days. Dr. Pierce 
said, " Let New England go ; " and he ventured to 
prophesy that when division came, "that in ten 



104 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

years from this day, and perhaps less time, there 
will not be left one shred of the distinctive pecul- 
iarities of Methodism in the Conferences that de- 
part from us. The venerable man who now pre- 
sides over the Northern Conferences may live out 
his time as a bishop, but he will never have a suc- 
cessor." 

There was a wide distance between the points 
of view taken by these two prophets, and both of 
them proved to be uninspired men. The Church 
was divided and the senior bishop did have a suc- 
cessor, and many of them. A grand line of wor- 
thy and well-qualified men have filled the place 
that Bishop Soule occupied. Dr. Crooks twits us 
with the failures of our prophet, but does not no- 
tice the mistakes of his own. 

Upon the whole, we do not see that the battle of 
1844 could be fought anew with any better results. 
The Northern branch of the Church has gone for- 
ward with a degree of enthusiasm that guaranteed 
success. She has taken possession of every foot of 
territory that was accessible; and, with the excep- 
tion of the Southern work, the event has fully jus- 
tified every enterprise she has undertaken. 

It may be in the plan of Divine Providence to 
supplant every inferior race by a superior type of 
humanity in every part of the globe. The Ameri- 
can Indian, the New Zealander, the Australasian, 
and, in their season, the natives of the lands that 
lie outside of Christendom, must abide by the in- 
exorable laws of competition. The Indian and the 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



natives of Australasia have given way before the 
activities of a superior race. The Caucasian 
comes to rule wherever he pitches his tent and 
plants a roof-tree. As efficient allies in this great 
movement, our brethren of the North have taken 
a conspicuous position in the Southern States. 
They have expended immense sums of money, 
and they have employed some of the finest speci- 
mens of self-sacrificing pioneers, whose talents 
qualified them for any mission and for any pulpit. 
Whether these labors are to be signalized by ac- 
complishing what the world has never seen before, 
or whether they will tend to a gentle ministration 
in the euthanasia of a race, time only will determine. 

Meantime, it is proper that the Southern view of 
these questions, and especially a correct presenta- 
tion of the historical data preceding, attending, 
and following the division of the Church, should 
be placed before our own people. For these we 
write, and the reason for the existence of the 
Southern Methodist Episcopal Church will not be 
fully stated without an additional paper. In that 
article we propose to examine the question wheth- 
er the division of 1844 any thing to do with 
the civil war of 1861-65. The place that Bishop 
Simpson occupied in that struggle, w r hich Dr. 
Crooks tells us he had seen rehearsed in the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1844, will require distinct and 
definite treatment. 



CHAPTER V. 



A Popular Error — No Connection between the Division in 1S44 
and the Civil War — Separation Tended to Allay Excitement 
— The South Sends a Fraternal Messenger — Rejected by the 
North — Struggle of 1S61 Inevitable from the Beginning — 
Two Theories of Government — One Paternal, Monarchial, 
without Checks upon Legislation — The Other Republican, 
Limited by Constitutional Guards — Mr. Jefferson Defines 
the Principles of the Two Parties in 1798 — Rules for Inter- 
pretation of the Federal Compact — Liberty of the Citizen — 
Mr. Jefferson's Political Creed — Virginia and Kentucky Res- 
olutions, How Originated — French Arrogance and British 
Injustice — Alien and Sedition Laws — Liberty of the Person 
and of the Press Involved — Votes on the Two Bills — The 
South Against, New England in Favor of These Laws — 
Clear Demarkation of Party and Sectional Lines — Text of 
the Virginia Resolutions — Kentucky Resolutions, Written by 
Mr. Jefferson — Forwarded to the States — Replies. 

In our first article we quoted a paragraph from 
the biography of Bishop Simpson, and we recur 
to that paragraph for the purpose of refuting a 
popular opinion. We say a "popular opinion," 
because it is held in both sections of the country, 
North and South. In the South it is entertained 
by those who have no kindly feeling for the Meth- 
odist Church. In the North this unfriendly feel- 
ing is reserved for the Soui/iern Methodist Church ; 
and we have no cause for surprise, in either case, 
if the power of prejudice should pay little attention 
(106) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 107 



to the facts of history or the claims of justice. Dr. 
Crooks says: 

The schism in the Church not only preceded in time, but led 
on to the greater schism: the attempt to create two nations out 
of one. What wearied Bishop Simpson was to witness the pre- 
liminary rehearsal of the struggle from 1S61 to 1865. 

We do not propose to examine, in detail, the 
question whether the division of the Church in 
1844 was in any proper sense a " schism." If we 
attach the proper meaning to the word 44 schism/' 
it is quite clear that the Southern Conferences did 
not contemplate any thing of the kind. Their con- 
duct at the time, and subsequently, disproves the 
charge. 

Abraham and Lot, because of the divisions ex- 
isting among their respective servants, agreed to 
separate; and they selected, each for himself, a 
place of residence — one to the right, the other to 
the left of their former possession. Did they com- 
mit " schism" in so doing? They divided the 
flocks and herds belonging to them, in order to 
preserve peace and harmony. Did the followers 
of Mr. Wesley commit " schism " by organizing a 
Society, a Church for Christian fellowship and the 
worship of God? We have been accustomed to 
hear this charge made by the enemies of Method- 
ism, but it would certainly be a novelty if it pro- 
ceeded from any person who calls himself a Meth- 
odist. " Schism" is division, undoubtedly; and 
the w r orst kind of " schism " is that which is con- 
fined between the same ecclesiastical walls, pro- 



IOS BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ducing every form of unseemly strife and conten- 
tion. To avoid these divisions in the collective 
body of the Church, the wisdom of 1844 provided 
for a plan of peaceful separation into two bodies. 
Each of these Churches respecting and esteeming 
the other, all the demands of Christian charity and 
fraternity could be provided for in the intercom- 
munion of ministers and members. 

In obedience to this conception of the " Plan of 
Separation," the first General Conference of the 
Southern Church appointed a fraternal delegate, 
in the person of Rev. Lovick Pierce, who attended 
the General Conference of the Northern Church 
in 1848, and was politely but firmly rejected^ and 
denied an opportunity to carry the fraternal greet- 
ings of Southern Methodism. If there was at any 
time a " schism " in the Church, surely it occurred 
in 1848, when the loving tender of fraternal friend- 
ship was repelled, and the communion of love and 
peace disowned by our brethren of the North ! 

But Dr. Crooks tells us that the " schism " of 1844 
"led on to the greater schism: the attempt to cre- 
ate two nations out of one." With this assertion 
we are bold enough to join issue. Whatever the 
character of the action in 1844 n^ght have been, 
we maintain that it had no influence whatever in 
producing the " schism" of 1861. There is a sense, 
perhaps, in which all human events that precede 
in point of time may be said to " lead on to " ev- 
ery event that happens at a later period. It is 
manifest, however, that our biographer means to 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. IO9 



tell us that the division of the Church in 1844 was 
the cause of the Civil War in 1861. So strongly 
is the language of Dr. Crooks charged with this 
idea that he is betrayed into a sentence of curious 
English. He says that Dr. Simpson was wearied 
out by the task of witnessing " the preliminary re- 
hearsal of the struggle from 1861 to 1865." In 
what sense a debate on the Conference floor in 
New York City can be said to be a " rehearsal of 
a struggle " in which more than a million of lives 
were lost, and untold millions of property values 
destroyed, we confess ourselves at fault in attempt- 
ing to discern. 

There is a connection, doubtless, between the 
assassination of the Duke D'Enghien and the bat- 
tle of Waterloo ; as it would be possible to trace 
some relation between the death of Prince Henry, 
the favorite son of James I., and the establishment 
of the English Commonwealth under Lord Pro- 
tector Cromwell. The character of the wrong- 
headed man who threatened the independence of 
every State in Europe, and even aspired to the do- 
minion of the world, may in some sort be shad- 
owed forth in the murder of a lawful competitor 
for his crown, precisely as the end of his ambitions 
and his triumphs may be seen in the battle which 
embodied Europe's answer to his audacious chal- 
lenge. But it would be regarded as a singular ex- 
pression of opinion if any historian should assign 
the murder of the duke as the cause of Napoleon's 
defeat at Waterloo. In like manner we may read- 



no 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ily acknowledge the possibility of a different state 
of political affairs in England if the amiable Prince 
Henry had succeeded to the throne of Great Britain 
in 1626. But what would the reader think of the 
historian who attempted to find in the death of the 
son of James I. the cause of the faithlessness and 
vicious kingcraft which led to the "Great Rebell- 
ion," and ultimately to the clear definition and actual 
realization of political and civil liberty in England? 

We believe that the struggle which culminated 
in 1865 was inevitable from the beginning of the 
country's history. Either in that or some equiva- 
lent form the contending forces must have resorted 
to the " dread arbitrament of war." The occasion, 
the pretext, and the approximate cause are terms 
that amount to the same thing, w T hen we consider 
the character of any civil war. It was a struggle for 
existence, and there could be no compromises in its 
issue. We shall not venture here to pronounce a 
judgment upon the actors on either side. The con- 
querors and the conquered are alike entitled to the 
only justification which can make a defense for hu- 
man actions. Both parties believed that they were 
fighting for the truth, and the severity of the contest 
was a tribute to the sincerity of the convictions w 7 hich 
produced it. But that contest would have occurred 
if the Methodist Church had never been organized 
in this country. We may go farther, and assert 
that a civil war would have occurred, sooner or 
later, even if an African slave had never existed in 
North America. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Ill 



The real cause of the struggle was the existence 
of two theories of government — theories irrecon- 
cilable with each other and incapable of mutual 
tolerance. The watch-words of political organiza- 
tions are the offspring of the hour, and may per- 
ish with the occasion that employed them; but 
the principles of constitutional parties are imperish- 
able. Appertaining to the organic government of 
the land, they may change their form, but never 
lose their essential character. The zeal, ability, 
and success of the advocates of any great party 
system will lead to greater or less modifications 
of particular measures, in accordance with the wis- 
dom that may direct the councils of the party; but 
temporary defeats often prepare the way for future 
victory. But we do not allude to administrative 
measures — whether or not the country shall main- 
tain a particular tariff, for example. These may 
be advocated to-day and repudiated to-morrow, by 
the same party, without incurring the odium of in- 
consistency. Times change, and administrative 
measures change with them. If the tariff of 1890 
had been enacted by the first American Congress 
in 1789, another rebellion would have followed that 
of 1776. The mildest form of tariff "protection" 
was branded as " intolerable oppression" in 1790. 

There were two parties with widely diverging 
views of constitutional government in 1787, as 
there are two parties maintaining the same opin- 
ions in 1891. Thomas Jefferson became the lead- 
er of one of these parties, and it is from his pen 



112 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



that the first chapter of the history of our Civil 
War must be taken: 

The fact is that at the formation of our government many 
had formed their political opinions on European writings and 
practices, believing the experience of old countries — and espe- 
cially of England, abusive as it was — to be a safer guide than 
theory. The doctrines of Europe were that men in numerous 
associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and 
justice but by forces, physical and moral, wielded over them by 
authorities independent of their will. Hence their organiza- 
tion of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests. Still further to re- 
strain the brute forces of the people, they deem it necessary to 
keep them down by hard labor, poverty, and ignorance ; and to 
take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings as that 
unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus 
barely to sustain a scanty and miserable life. And these earn- 
ings they apply to maintain their privileged orders in splendor 
and idleness, to fascinate the eyes of the people, and excite in 
them a humble adoration and submission as to an order of su- 
perior beings. Although few among us had gone all those 
lengths of opinion, yet many had advanced — some more, some 
less — on the way. And in the convention which formed our 
government they endeavored to draw the cords of power as 
tight as they could obtain them, to lessen the dependence of the 
general functionaries on their constituents, to subject to them 
those of the States, and to weaken their means of maintaining 
the steady equilibrium which the majority of the convention had 
deemed salutary for both branches, general and local. To re- 
cover, therefore, in practice the powers which the nation had re- 
fused, and to warp to their own wishes those actually given, was 
the steady object of the Federal party. Ours, on the contrary, was 
to maintain the will of the majority of the convention, and of the 
people themselves. We believed, with them, that man was a 
rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an in- 
nate sense of justice; and that he could be restrained from 
wrong and protected in right by moderate powers, confided to 
persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by depend- 
ence on his own will. We believed that the complicated organ- 
ization of kings, nobles, and priests was not the wisest nor best 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A • POLITICIAN. II3 



to effect the happiness of associated man ; that wisdom and virt- 
ue were not hereditary; that the trappings of such a machinery 
consumed, by their expense, those earnings of industry they 
were meant to protect; and by the iniquities they produced, ex- 
posed liberty to sufferance. We believed that men, enjoying in 
ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted 
by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to 
think for themselves and follow their reason as their guide, 
would be more easily and safely governed than with minds 
nourished in error and vitiated and debased, as in Europe, by 
ignorance, indigence, and oppression. The cherishment of the 
people, then, was our principle; the fear and distrust of them 
that of the other party. Composed, as we were, of the landed 
and laboring interests of the country, we could not be less anx- 
ious for a government of law and order than were the inhab- 
itants of the cities, the stronghold of Federalism. ... I 
have stated above that the original objects of the Federalists 
were (1) to warp our government more to the form and prin- 
ciples of monarchy and (2) to weaken the barriers of the State 
governments as co-ordinate powers. In the first they have 
been so completely foiled by the universal spirit of the nation 
that they have abandoned the enterprise, shrunk from the odi- 
um of their old appellation, taken to themselves a participation 
of ours, and under the pseudo-republican mask are now aiming 
at their second object; and, strengthened by unsuspecting or 
apostate recruits from our ranks, are advancing fast toward an 
ascendency. I have been blamed for saying that a prevalence 
of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for refor- 
mation or revolution . I answer by asking if a single State of the 
Union would have agreed to the Constitution had it given all 
powers to the general government, if the whole opposition to 
it did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of any State of 
being subjected to the other States in matters merely its own. 
And is there any reason to believe the States more disposed 
now than then to acquiesce in this general surrender of all 
their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and 
undivided? ("Jefferson's Correspondence," Vol. IV., pp. 369, 
37i.) 

In regard to the rule of construction by which the 

8 



n 4 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Federal Constitution should be interpreted, his doc- 
trine was explicit: 

There are two canons which will guide us safely in most 
cases: 

1. The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to 
leave with the States all authorities which respected their own 
citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those Avhich 
respected citizens of foreign or other States; to make us sev- 
eral as to ourselves, but one as to all others. In the latter case, 
then, constructions should lead to the general jurisdiction, if 
the words will bear it; and in favor of the States in the former, 
if possible to be so construed. And, indeed, between citizens 
and citizens of the same State, and under their own laws, I know 
of but a single case in which a jurisdiction is given to the gen- 
eral government. That is, when any thing but gold or silver 
is made a lawful tender, or the obligation of contracts is any 
otherwise impaired. The separate Legislatures had so often 
abused that power that the citizens themselves chose to trust it 
to the general government, rather than to their own special au- 
thorities. 

2. On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the 
time %vhen the Constitution -was adopted, recollect the spirit manifest- 
ed in the debates, and instead of trying -what meaning may be squeezed 
out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in 
which it was passed. (Ibid., p. 373.) 

In regard to the rights and personal liberty of 
the citizen, Mr. Jefferson was equally explicit: 

Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful 
limits of their powers: that their office is to declare and enforce 
only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them 
from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on 
the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws 
ought to restrain him. Every man is under the natural duty of 
contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is all that 
the laws should enforce on him; and no man having a natural 
right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his nat- 
ural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled 
their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded that on enter- 
ing into society we give up any natural right. The trial of ev- 
ery law by one of those texts would lessen much the labors of 
our legislators, and lighten equally our municipal codes. (Ibid., 
p. 278.) 

In a conversation with President Washington, in 
the year 1792, Mr. Jefferson exhibits the ruling 
trait of the party opposed to his views. It was the 
beginning of a process of evolution which clearly 
identifies the Federal theory of government with 
that which triumphed at the close of the Civil War 
in 1865: 

I told him that they had now brought forward a proposition 
far beyond every one ever yet advanced, and to which the eyes 
of many are turned, as the decision which was to let us know 
whether we live under a limited or an unlimited government. 
He asked me to what proposition I alluded. I answered: k -To 
that in the report on manufactures, which, under color of giv- 
ing bounties for the encouragement of particular manufactures, 
meant to establish the doctrine that the power given by the Con- 
stitution to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the 
United States, permitted Congress to take every thing under 
their management which they should deem for the public welfare^ 
and which is susceptible of the application of money ; conse- 
quently, that the subsequent enumeration of their powers has 
not the description to which resort must be had, and did not at 
all constitute the limit of their authority." (Ibid., p. 457.) 

As Mr. Jefferson was the acknowledged leader 
of the party that advocated a strict construction of 
the Federal Constitution, and believed that the 
perpetuity of the Union depended upon this rigid 
adherence to the letter and the spirit of the Fed- 
eral Compact, it will be necessary to examine his 
declaration of principles made some years after 



Il6 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the foregoing conversation was held. Writing to 
Elbridge Gerry in 1799. he says: 

I do, then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation 
of our present Federal Constitution, according to the true sense 
in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its 
enemies apprehended, who, therefore, became its enemies; and 
I am opposed to the monarchizing features bv the forms of its 
administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a 
President and Senate, for life, and from that to an hereditary 
tenure of these offices, and thus to worm out the elective prin- 
ciple. I am for preserving to the States the power not yielded 
by them to the Union, and to the Legislature of the Union its 
constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for 
transferring all the powers of the State to the general govern- 
ment, and all those of that government to the executive branch. 
I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying 
ail the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge 
of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and 
salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every 
device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public 
blessing. I am for relying, for internal defense, on our militia 
solelv, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as 
may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as 
we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of 
peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy 
which, bv its own expenses, and the eternal wars with which it 
will implicate us, will grind us with public burdens, and sink us 
under them. I am for free commerce with all nations; political 
connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment. 
And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the 
governments of Europe ; entering that field of slaughter to pre- 
serve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to 
war against the principles of liberty. 

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to 
bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another; for 
freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitu- 
tion to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or 
criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of 
their agents. And I am for encouraging the progress of sci- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



117 



ence in all its branches; and not for raising a hue and cry 
against the sacred name of philosophy, for awing the human 
mind by stories of rawhead and bloody bones to a distrust of its 
own vision and to repose implicitly on that of others, to go 
backward instead of forward to look for improvement; to be- 
lieve that government, religion, morality, and every other science 
were in the highest perfection in days of the darkest ignorance, 
and that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what 
was established by our forefathers. (Ibid., Vol. III., p. 408.) 

Many of our readers are familiar with the his- 
tory of the famous Virginia and Kentucky Reso- 
lutions of 1799. But there are many persons to 
whom the history of these famous Resolutions is 
unknown. Mr. Jefferson was the author of the 
Kentucky Resolutions, and Mr. Madison of the 
Virginia Resolutions. He became their apologist 
and advocate, writing in their defense one of the 
ablest State papers to be found in the archives of 
our country. It has often been asserted that these 
Resolutions were designed as the initial step to- 
ward the dissolution of the Union. The authors 
and the apologists of this famous paper have ap- 
pealed to the candor of the world in opposition to 
the invidious criticism from every quarter. 

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were 
written in 1798-99, and formed a vigorous protest 
against the action of the Congress in the preced- 
ing year, by which the Alien and Sedition laws be- 
came parts of the law of the land. Few of our 
readers will be able to recall the intent and pur- 
pose of these enactments, called the Alien and Se- 
dition laws. Party spirit raged to an extent scarce- 



Il8 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



\y conceivable by the bitterest partisans^ our own 
time. More than once the venerable Washington 
threatened to resign the presidency and to retire 
from the heat and fury of the political contest. 
Every crime in the catalogue of wickedness was 
boldly attributed to the leaders of the parties of 
that day. Jefferson and the elder Adams, as the 
recognized leaders of the two great parties, were 
slandered without mercy and without the slightest 
compunction of conscience. We may imagine the 
force of this bitter abuse and vituperation as they 
were applied to lesser lights by reflecting that the 
pure and spotless character of Washington would 
have been besmirched had not the indignant voice 
of the nation held the vile calumniators in check. 

The French Revolution was then passing into 
the stage which provided for the usurpation of 
Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Directory, a 
combination of venal time-servers and self-seeking 
demagogues, had sorely wounded the feelings and 
challenged the self-respect of the American peo- 
ple. Within the United States, and under the very 
shadow of the national capitol, a French embassa- 
dor had boldly ventured to raise and equip regi- 
ments of soldiers and to collect materials of war to 
be used against Great Britain, a country at peace 
with the United States. Under pretense of a 
treaty of alliance made in the War of the Revolu- 
tion, this audacious Frenchman sought to make 
the United States a party to the contest with En- 
gland* He was so bold and insolent as to take 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



II 9 



even President Washington to task for refusing to 
comply with his absurd demands, and publicly held 
up our government to the scorn and ridicule of the 
world. That this conduct was calculated to prej- 
udice our people against all aliens of every country 
is a natural inference. The desire to escape the 
fury of domestic libelers and partisan slanderers 
is also a natural outcome of years of misrepresen- 
tation and detraction. But the party in power in 
1798 miscalculated the remedy, and added wrong 
to wrong by the enactment of the Alien and Sedi- 
tion laws. 

By the first of these statutes the President of the 
United States was clothed with powers and prerog- 
atives unknown outside of a purely arbitrary and 
despotic monarchy. If the President should judge 
any alien to be " dangerous to the peace and safe- 
ty of the United States,'' or if the President had 
" reasonable grounds to suspect 99 such alien of 
entering into " any treasonable or secret machina- 
tions against the government of the United States," 
the President was authorized to banish the suspect- 
ed man from the territory of the United States. If 
the aforesaid alien, after notice of banishment, 
" and not having obtained a license from the Pres- 
ident to reside therein," continued so to do, he was 
placed upon trial, not for the treason suspected, but 
for the fact of remaining in the country after hav- 
ing received notice of banishment. If convicted of 
residing in the country contrary to the order of the 
President, he was punished by an imprisonment 



120 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



not exceeding three years and forever incapacitat- 
ed from becoming a citizen of the United States ! 
If the suspected alien could prove to the satisfac- 
tion of the President that " no injury to the United 
States" would accrue by reason of his residence 
in the country, the President was authorized to 
give the alien a permit to remain for a certain 
length of time and to dwell at such place as the 
President might select. 

If a suspected alien, not having the President's 
permit to reside in the country, should be sent to 
jail as a punishment, the Alien law authorized the 
President to order the man to be sent out of the 
country by force ; and if the deported alien should 
presume to return, he was liable to imprisonment 
during the good pleasure of the President. 

We can scarcely find in modern history a paral- 
lel for such an enactment as the Alien law. Ob- 
jectionable persons, classes, or races may be ex- 
cluded from the territory of a people for causes as- 
signed and declared in the premises. But to ar- 
rest individuals upon the bare suspicion of hostil- 
ity to the party in power, for this was the real 
meaning of the act, is a measure that could only 
find favor or apology in the land of the Czars. To 
clothe one man, the head of a party as well as the 
executive officer of the nation, with judicial pow- 
ers, making him the judge, the jury, the witness, 
and the sheriff to execute vengeance upon a per- 
son whose proved offense was only his residence 
in the country, is certainly a proceeding unknown 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 121 



to the annals of any nation enjoying the blessings 
of peace and liberty. 

As the Alien law placed every foreigner in the 
United States at the mercy of the President, so the 
Sedition law placed every American citizen in the 
pow r er of the courts simply for expressing opinions 
and uttering criticisms upon the conduct of the 
party in power. The gravity of this statement re- 
quires an exact quotation from the statute itself: 

Sec. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter, or pub- 
lish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or 
published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writ- 
ing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous, and 
malicious writing or writings against the government of the 
United States, or either House of the Congress of the United 
States, or the President of the United States, with intent to de- 
fame the said government, or either House of the said Con- 
gress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, 
into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either 
or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United 
States; or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to ex- 
cite any unlawful combinations therein for opposing or resist- 
ing any law of the United States or any act of the President of 
the United States done in pursuance of any such law or of the 
powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; 
or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, en- 
courage, or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation 
against the United States, their people, or government; then 
such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the 
United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by 
a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars andbj imprisonment 
not exceeding two years. 

Perhaps the most remarkable feature in this most 
remarkable enactment is the fact that by Sec. 4 it 
was declared " That this act shall continue and be 
in force until the third day of March, one thou- 



122 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



sand eight hundred and one, and no longer 99 In 
other words, the Sedition law should exist precise- 
ly for the use and service of President John Ad- 
ams, his presidential term expiring on the very 
day named for the expiration of the Sedition law ! 
Could any statement declare in stronger terms 
that the purpose of the act was solely to meet the 
necessities of the party in power? 

If we examine closely the wording of this act, 
we will find it to be a complete and absolute dec- 
laration against the freedom of speech and the 
freedom of the press. Laws of libel are essential 
in any country that enjoys any measure of civil or so- 
cial liberty, but so artfully is this Sedition law con- 
trived that every opponent of the party in power was 
liable to arrest, arraignment, trial before a partisan 
jury, and conviction under the dictation of a parti- 
san judge. It was sufficient if the sentence spoken 
or printed was uttered with the "intent to defame" 
or to bring into " contempt or disrepute " the Presi- 
dent, the Congress, or the government of the coun- 
try. Deplorable as the conduct of partisan politics 
often is, severely as we condemn the absurd and 
wicked slanders that are often propagated , and great- 
ly as all honest men desire to see a reformation in 
this regard, surely the liberties of the people con- 
stitute too great a price to pay for abstention from 
acts calculated to " defame " or to bring President 
or Congress " into contempt or disrepute! 99 

This Alien law passed the Senate by a vote of 
sixteen yeas to seven nays. Every Senator voting 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



123 



against the bill was a Southern man. Every Sen- 
ator from New England voted for the bill. In 
the House of Representatives twenty-three mem- 
bers from New England voted for the bill, and 
two against it. Of the Southern members, nine 
voted for the bill, and twenty-nine against it. 
Thus we see the early alignment of parties on a 
grave issue which contained in itself the question 
of the genius of the Federal Government. Of the 
forty-six yeas that passed the bill, twenty-three 
were from New England; of the forty negative 
votes, tw r enty-nine w T ere from the Southern States. 
Of the sixty-two votes in the affirmative in both 
Senate and House, thirty were from New England; 
and of the forty-seven negative votes, only two 
were from New England! On the other hand, of 
the forty-seven negative votes, thirty-six were from 
the South; and of the sixty-two yeas, only four- 
teen were from the Southern States, Maryland and 
Delaware being responsible for one-half of the 
fourteen affirmative votes. 

As the same general principle was at stake in 
the Sedition bill, we find the vote almost the same. 
There were sixty-two yeas — eighteen in the Senate 
and forty-four in the House. In the Senate vote 
every negative but one was from the South. In 
the two Houses New England gave thirty-two af- 
firmative and two negative votes. The Southern 
States furnished thiny-one negative and ten affirm- 
ative votes, Maryland and Delaware furnishing six 
out of the ten affirmative votes. 



I2 4 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



No clearer or broader distinction could be fur- 
nished or desired. The people of the Southern 
States were followers of Jefferson, Madison, and 
Monroe, and adhered to the doctrine of a Federal 
union defined and limited by the compact of the 
Constitution. Under this great charter of the 
nation the rights, powers, and duties of State and 
Federal Government are distinctly defined. To go 
beyond their limitations, either by violent assump- 
tion of authority in the face of the letter of the 
Constitution, or to accomplish by indirect means 
the objects confessedly denied by the plain letter 
of the compact, was, in either case, usurpation of 
power. 

James Madison was thoroughly conversant with 
every measure relating to the formation of the Fed- 
eral Constitution. Present as a Representative 
from Virginia, he was one of the framers of the 
instrument, and no man was better entitled to speak 
upon the subject w T ith authority. As the author of 
the celebrated " Virginia Resolutions" he ex- 
pressed the deep-seated conviction of the great 
body of the people of the United States in regard 
to the Alien and Sedition laws. We copy this im- 
portant paper: 

In the Virginia House of Delegates, Friday, Decem- 
ber 21, 1798. 

Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia doth une- 
quivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this 
State, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic; and 
that we will support the Government of the United States in all 
measures Avarranted by the former. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



125 



That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attach- 
ment to the union of the States, to maintain which it pledges its 
powers ; and that for this end it is their duty to watch over and 
oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the 
only basis of that union, because a faithful observance of them 
can alone secure its existence and the public happiness. 

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare 
that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as result- 
ing from the compact, to which the States are parties, as lim- 
ited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument consti- 
tuting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized 
by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a 
deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, 
not granted by said compact, the States, who are parties there- 
to, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for ar- 
resting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within 
their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties ap- 
pertaining to them. 

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret 
that a spirit has, in sundry instances, been manifested by the 
Federal Government to enlarge its powers by forced construc- 
tions of the constitutional charter which defines them ; and that 
indications have appeared of a design to expound certain gen- 
eral phrases (which, having been copied from the very limited 
grant of powers in the former Articles of Confederation, were the 
less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and 
effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains 
and limits the general phrases, and so as to consolidate the States 
by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and in- 
evitable result of which would be to transform the present re- 
publican system of the United States into an absolute or, at best, 
a mixed monarchy. 

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against 
the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution in the 
two late cases of the Alien and Sedition acts, passed at the last 
session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no- 
where delegated to the Federal Government, and which, by 
uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of the executive, 
subverts the general principles of free government, as well as 
the particular organization and positive provisions of the Fed- 



126 BISHOP SBIPSOX AS A POLITICIAX 



eral Constitution; and the other of these acts exercises in like 
manner a power not delegated by the Constitution, but on the 
contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amend- 
ments thereto, a power which more than any other ought to 
produce universal alarm, because it is leveled against the right 
of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free 
communication among the people thereon, which has ever been 
justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right. 

That this State having by its Convention, which ratified the 
Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other es- 
sential rights, M the liberty of conscience and the press cannot 
be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority 
of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard 
these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambi- 
tion, having with other States recommended an amendment for 
that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to 
the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and 
criminal degeneracy if an indifference were now shown to the 
most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and 
secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be 
fatal to the other. 

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever 
felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their 
brethren of the other States, the truest anxiety for establishing 
and perpetuating the union of all, and the most scrupulous fidel- 
ity to that Constitution which is the pledge of mutual friendship 
and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assem- 
bly doth solemnly appeal to the like disposition in other States, 
in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in 
declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are 
unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures 
will be taken by each for co-operating with this State in main- 
taining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved 
to the States respectively or to the people. 

That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the 
foregoing resolutions to the executive authority of each of the 
other States, with a request that the same may be communi- 
cated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished 
to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this 
State in the Congress of the United States. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 1 27 



The specific issue is joined in the Kentucky res- 
olutions, in the forcible language of Mr. Jefferson: 

Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the pro- 
tection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey 
the simple order of the President to depart out of the United 
States, as is undertaken by the said acts, entitled "An Act Con- 
cerning Aliens," is contrary to the Constitution, one amend- 
ment in which has provided that " no person shall be deprived 
of liberty without due process of law," and that another having 
provided "that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall 
enjoy the right of a public trial by an impartial jury, to be in- 
formed as to the nature and cause of the accusation, to be con- 
fronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory 
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assist- 
ance of counsel for his defense;" the same act undertaking to 
authorize the President to remove a person out of the United 
States who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspi- 
cion, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation 
of the witnesses against him, without having witnesses in his 
favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to those 
provisions, also, of the Constitution ; is therefore not law, but 
utterly void, and of no force. 

That transferring the power of judging any person who is 
under the protection of the laws from the courts to the Presi- 
dent of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act 
concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution 
which provides that "the judicial power of the United States 
shall be vested in the courts, the judges of which shall hold 
their office during good behavior;" and that the said act is void 
for that reason also. And it is further to be noted that this 
transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general 
government who already possesses all the executive and a qual- 
ified negative in all the legislative powers. 

After a clear exposition of the doctrine of " strict 
construction of the Constitution," the paper pro- 
ceeds: 

And that, therefore, this commonwealth is determined, as it 



128 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



doubts not its co-States are, to submit -to undelegated, and con- 
sequently unlimited, powers in no man or body of men on 
earth ; that if the acts before specified should stand, these con- 
clusions would flow from them : that the general government 
may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and 
punish it themselves, whether enumerated or not enumerated 
by the Constitution as cognizable by them ; that they may trans- 
fer its cognizance to the President or any other person, who 
may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and jury; whose 
suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his of- 
ficer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the trans- 
action; that a very numerous and valuable description of the 
inhabitants of these States being by this precedent reduced as 
outlaws to absolute dominion of one man, and the barriers of 
the Constitution thus swept from us all ; no rampart now re- 
mains against the passions and the power of a majority of Con- 
gress, to protect from a like exportation or other grievous pun- 
ishment the minority of the same body — the Legislatures, 
judges, Governors, and counselors of the States, nor their other 
peaceable inhabitants who may venture to reclaim the constitu- 
tional rights and liberties of the States and people; or who for 
other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the view or 
marked by the suspicion of the President, or to be thought 
dangerous to his or their elections or other interests, public or 
personal; that the friendless alien has been selected as the saf- 
est subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon fol- 
low, or, rather, has already followed, for already has a Sedition 
act marked him as a prey. That these and successive acts of the 
same character, unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive 
these States into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calum- 
nies against republican governments, and new pretexts for those 
who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by 
a rod of iron. 

These protests of Virginia and Kentucky were 
forwarded to the Governors of the several States, 
and an expression of opinion solicited from the Leg- 
islatures throughout the Union. It was the avowed 
purpose of the authors of the resolutions to arouse 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



I29 



the people of the country, and to cause a careful 
consideration of the whole subject, thereby pro- 
moting a speedy repeal of the obnoxious measures 
by the action of the Congress that had adopted 
them. But the answers of the States only con- 
firmed the strongly marked line of division be- 
tween the two parties. One Southern State (Del- 
aware), then in the hands of the Federalists, called 
the protest of Virginia a " very unjustifiable inter- 
ference with the general government and consti- 
tuted authorities of the United States," and ab- 
ruptly refused to consider the question at all. In 
like manner the Federal Legislature of New York 
expressed the anxiety and regret with which they 
observed " the inflammatory and pernicious senti- 
ments and doctrines which are contained in the 
resolutions of the Legislatures of Virginia and 
Kentucky." On the ground of the necessity for 
a 6 ' reasonable confidence in the constituted au- 
thorities and chosen representatives of the people," 
the State Senate of New York pronounced the 
Alien and Sedition laws to be just and proper meas- 
ures, w r ell calculated to prevent any tendency to- 
ward " the weakening of confidence in or the de- 
struction of usefulness of the public functionaries." 

These two States (Delaware and New York) 
were followed by all the States of New England. 
Rhode Island declared that the Alien and Sedition 
laws were " within the powers delegated to Con- 
gress, and promotive of the welfare of the United 
States." The "Providence Plantations" further 
9 



IJO BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

declared the Virginia resolutions to be " very un- 
warrantable," and calculated to produce " many 
evil and fatal consequences." Connecticut de- 
clared that the Alien and Sedition acts were au- 
thorized by the Constitution, and that the exigency 
of the country rendered them necessary; and 
therefore the Legislature of Connecticut indorsed 
both of these statutes, because they merited " the 
entire approbation of this Assembly." 

The Legislature of New Hampshire, disclaiming 
any right to sit in judgment upon the acts of the 
Federal Government, declared, nevertheless, that 
if "for mere speculative purposes" they were 
called upon to express an opinion, " that opinion 
would unreservedly be that those acts are constitu- 
tional, and in the present critical situation of our 
country highly expedient." 

The General Assembly of Vermont declared 
that they " do highly disapprove of the resolutions 
of the General Assembly of Virginia, as being un- 
constitutional in their nature and dangerous in their 
tendency." 

The Legislature of Massachusetts entered into a 
long and labored defense of the Alien and Sedi- 
tion laws. " The genuine liberty of speech and 
of the press," says the remarkable paper which 
the wisdom of Massachusetts prepared in answer 
to Madison and Jefferson, " is the liberty to utter 
and publish the truth ; but the constitutional right 
of the citizen to utter and publish the truth is not 
to be confounded with the licentiousness in speak- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 131 



ing and writing that is only employed in propagat- 
ing falsehood and slander." This profound dec- 
laration was worthy of Dogberry in the height of 
his glory. Falsehood is seldom uttered and pub- 
lished by those who confess it to be a falsehood, 
and the very question at issue is always the truth 
of the charges preferred against those who fill the 
public offices at the time. That the power of prej- 
udice will be exerted in its bitterest form in the 
political conflicts of the day is one of the evils inci- 
dent to a free government. To suppress falsehood 
by bridling truth also is the ingenious device of 
those whose thirst for power overrides every other 
principle and passion of the human mind and heart. 



CHAPTER VI. 



Mr. Madison's Defense — "General Welfare" Clause an Open 
Door for Every Species of Legislation — Steam-engine and 
Industrial Revolution — Internal Improvements — Manufact- 
ures — New England Ceases to Be Commercial and Becomes 
Manufacturing — African Slavery Becomes a Serious Men- 
ace — Constitution Protected the Institution— Confessed to Be 
an Evil — Abolition Movements Coincident with New En- 
gland's Defeat — Temporizing Influences — Infant Industries — 
Free Soilism — Disunion Orators and Their Sayings — High- 
er Law than the Constitution — The South Exasperated — The 
Disunion of the Church a Blessing — The South Conserva- 
tive—New England Radical— Increased Territory Subsequent 
to 1844 — New Occasions for Strife — Pressure upon the Con- 
servative Men of 1844 — Dr. Elliott Favors Separation in 1844, 
Calls it " Secession " in 1848 — Beecher, Quincy, Phillips, and 
Others — Disunionism in New England — -Agitation Increas- 
ing — Fears of the Torch and Dagger — Friendship for the 
Slave, Enmity to the Free Negro — Kansas, Nebraska, Ore- 
gon — Negroes Banished from Illinois — Conclusions Drawn 
by the South— The Sixth Restrictive Rule — Failure of the 
Argument Based upon It — Triumph of Federalism. 

In the defense of the Virginia resolutions Mr. 
Madison presented a report to the Legislature of 
Virginia, in which he triumphantly vindicated the 
series of resolutions which had aroused the antago- 
nism of New England. The broad and unquali- 
fied language of the Secretary of the Treasury in 
1 791 is quoted by Mr. Madison, in proof of the 
absolutely sovereign power claimed for the nation- 
al Congress. A single sentence in the Constitu- 
(132) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. I33 



tion was interpreted by Alexander Hamilton, and 
the interpretation was adopted by the Federal party 
as a sufficient warrant for any measure that might 
be devised to advance " the general welfare" of 
the country: 

It belongs to the discretion of the national Legislature to 
pronounce upon the objects Avhich concern the general wel- 
fare ; and for which, under that description, an appropriation of 
money is requisite and proper; and there seems to be no room 
for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of 
learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are 
within the sphere of national councils as far as regards an ap- 
plication of money. 

The reader cannot fail to see that the doctrine 
advocated by Hamilton and the Federal party gave 
to the national Legislature the entire field of legis- 
lation. Powers especially named in the Constitu- 
tion were beyond dispute, and all other powers 
were included under the phrase " to provide for 
the general welfare " of the country. Essentially 
British in their modes of political thought, this par- 
ty labored to endow the Congress of the United 
States with the same sovereign power possessed 
by the Parliament of Great Britain. No written 
Constitution binds that Parliament. Whatever the 
two Houses (the Lords and Commons) decree, 
that becomes the law of the land; for the royal 
veto has long since ceased to be a factor in " prac- 
tical politics." The essentia! body of the English 
Parliament is the House of Commons. The time 
has been when the elected representatives of the 
people swept away the House of Lords; and then, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



" one and indivisible," the House of Commons ex- 
isted in solitary splendor, without check or hin- 
derance. The entire nation lay at the mercy of a 
majority of irresponsible men. The tendency of 
British thought and action is toward the same goal 
at the present time ; and it can scarcely be ques- 
tioned that the Senate of the United States would 
follow the British House of Lords in the event of 
the absolute triumph of the Hamiltonian theory of 
government. 

We have been thus careful to define the doc- 
trines that distinguished the two great parties at 
the beginning of our national career, because these 
are still living issues. The people decided in Mr. 
Jefferson's favor in 1800, and the force of popular 
approval continued the reins of the government in 
the hands of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe for 
a quarter of a century. But the politicians of New 
England were actuated by a sincerity of conviction 
that could not be destnyyed by defeat; for, too 
wise to continue the form of exploded tenets, they 
ingeniously transferred the spirit of the party of 
the elder Adams to the progressive ideas and new 
environment of the younger Adams. 

The steam-engine had just appeared in the field 
of human labor, and the stupendous results of the 
utilization of steam power began to appear in a re- 
vival of industrjr and commerce such as the world 
had never before seen. The obstacles in the way 
of human progress appeared on every hand. The 
times called for capital, for millions of money, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. I35 



that private citizens could not or would not employ 
in public improvements. Roads, turnpikes, and 
railways must be constructed, and water-ways must 
be prepared for the use of the new steam-boat 
navigation. All past experience pointed to the 
" Dead Sea fruit " of expectation, when the State 
Legislatures were to be held responsible for mate- 
rial progress. The treasury of the State was filled 
by taxes drawn eo nomine^ by a very sensitive oper- 
ation, from the pockets of the people. The treas- 
ury of the Federal Union was filled by taxes of 
another kind. Insensibly drawn from the same 
pockets of the people, these taxes could be ex- 
travagantly applied to such uses as a majority of 
Congress might determine. 

Coincident with this demand for " internal im- 
provements" came the cry of protection for the 
feeble manufactures of the countrv. The infant 
industries which New England had patriotically 
established must not be left to the merciless com- 
petition of the " pauper labor of Europe," hence 
the omnipotence of a majority of the National Leg- 
islature came into practical use in a truly practical 
way. Nine-tenths of the community were taxed 
in order to promote the prosperity of the remaining 
tenth; but as this measure obviouslv tended to pro- 
mote ' ' the general welfare," no possible objection 
could be raised to this enterprise from the stand-point 
of the Constitution. Both of these " new depart- 
ures 1 ' came into vigorous life and energy during the 
administration of the younger x\dams, in 1825. 



136 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



" The Sage of Monticello " saw the cloud that was 
rising on the horizon. Five years before, he had 
been a mournful spectator at the birth of a com- 
promise which pierced the heart of the Federal 
compact of 1787. But the honesty and integrity 
of his countrymen were articles of belief which 
Thomas Jefferson could not be induced to repu- 
diate. Sectionalism, an unavoidable evil in any 
stage of our country's history, had been distinct- 
ly recognized and clearly indorsed by the act 
which admitted the State of Missouri into the 
Union. The precedent once established, the mere 
caprice of the day or the ambition of a statesman 
may extend, enlarge, or apply the convenient prin- 
ciple to any portion of the great machine of gov- 
ernment. 

New England was thoroughly aroused; and her 
great competitor, the South, was equally alive to 
the tremendous consequences that might follow a 
false step, an ingenuous admission, or a betrayal of 
a Constitutional right. But once more the prepon- 
derating influence of an enlightened public opinion 
averted the threatened dissolution of the Union. 
The country was convulsed from center to circum- 
ference, but the voice of the nation called one of 
its greatest and noblest heroes to the rescue of the 
republic. Progress in the arts, in science, in de- 
velopment of any kind was not, perhaps, so rapid, 
but it was the more trustworthy and became there- 
fore permanent. Modification of the taxes im- 
posed, and conservative views in regard to inter- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 1 37 



nal improvements, led to peace and quietness 
everywhere, except among a busy minority in 
New England. 

It is necessary at this point to direct the reader's 
attention to the important fact that, previous to 
1833, the existence of African slavery had never 
been regarded in the light of a serious menace to 
the Federal Union. Everywhere, North and South, 
the existence of slavery was deplored, but such 
were the conditions and environments of the peo- 
ple that no man could suggest a competent remedy 
for the evil. War with Great Britain during the ad- 
ministration of Washington, war with France during 
the term of the elder Adams, and again with Great 
Britain in the presidential terms of Jefferson and 
Madison, and the asserted encroachments of Fed- 
eral power and patronage — these and several other 
causes were, at various times, serious indications 
of a popular movement that might destroy the un- 
ion of the States. But the bare conception of an 
act of secession simply for the preservation of 
property in slaves did not enter the mind of any 
person entitled to the name of statesman. 

That African slavery was distinctly recognized 
in the Constitution all parties acknowledged. The 
infraction of the organic law in one particular pre- 
pared the way for violence in every other. But 
the indicated point of assault upon the Federal 
Constitution at the beginning was not the institu- 
tion of slavery. The existence of that anomalous 
species of labor furnished, how r ever, arguments 



138 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



and implements, and with these in absolute abun- 
dance the industrious workmen of New England 
addressed themselves to the task of destroying the 
Federal Constitution. It cannot be doubted that 
many of these men were sincere, for they gave the 
testimony which persecuted men and martyrs have 
given in all ages of the world. They were mobbed 
in Boston, and their presses and types scattered or 
destroyed. They cheerfully sustained the odium 
which their principles brought upon them. Be- 
lieving themselves to be in the right, they were 
ready to defy even the God of the universe if it 
should appear that the Divine Being had sanc- 
tioned the institution of slavery. That the Consti- 
tution recognized it only made the matter worse 
for the Constitution. Let that instrument perish, 
that the slave may be free ! 

It is not simply a phenomenon, the fact that the 
rise of the abolition party in New England was 
coincident with the defeat of the New England 
theory of government. The same persons may 
not have been prominent in the two departments 
of thought, political and social. No man deplored 
the sectional agitation more than the greatest of 
New England statesmen, Daniel Webster. But it 
is scarcely possible for any man to deny that the 
re-election of John Quincy Adams in 1828 would 
have silenced the mutterings of the feeble band of 
anti- slavery agitators. With the government in 
the hands of New England men, the country would 
have been absolutely secure from the disturbing 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



139 



forces of the abolition crusade. But the South 
had triumphed in the person of Andrew Jackson. 
The eloquent Senator from South Carolina, John 
C. Calhoun, empty as his threats may have been, 
had witnessed a relaxation of the cords that had 
bound his people as with fetters of iron. One vul- 
nerable place there was in the corporate being of 
the South: African slavery. The " vulnerable heel" 
was not more sensitive, and persistent efforts could 
not fail to accomplish the purposes of destruction. 

There are many great questions to which the 
Roman Catholic doctrine of " development" may 
be consistently applied. Cardinal Newman could 
not find the immaculate conception of the Virgin 
Mary in the New Testament, but he could show 
us a principle of " doctrinal evolution " by which 
the immaculate conception, the infalibillity of the 
pope, and any other desiderated tenet may be log- 
ically and necessarily deduced from the utter si- 
lence of Scripture upon the subject. So it would 
seem to be true that there is such a thing as the 
"evolution of conscience." When the minds of 
any considerable number of people are directed to 
the consideration of an avowed evil, it is easy to 
magnify that evil into an unbearable curse. Med- 
itation, investigation into the dark corners of the 
fact, and into these alone, and a due excitement of 
emotional philanthropy, cannot fail to result in act- 
ive enthusiasm. Essayists, lecturers, ministers of 
the gospel, and discounted politicians vied with one 
another in picturing the horrors and cruelti^ per- 



140 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



petrated by the people of the South upon unof- 
fending, harmless, and helpless slaves. Radical- 
ism exhausted the vocabulary of vituperation and 
calumny. 

Meantime the 66 infant manufactures" of New 
England had attained a sturdy manhood. Multi- 
plied millions were invested in the products of slave 
labor, and returning millions of profit enlarged 
the field of operations; and hence the capitalists 
engaged in these profitable investments were con- 
servative and opposed agitation. Their lukewarm- 
ness added fuel to flame. Churchmen of connec- 
tional organizations, such as the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, deplored the increasing agitation, 
because it violated all known principles of Chris- 
tian charity. The characters portrayed by the 
abolition orators as life pictures of Southern soci- 
ety were more depraved and revolting than the 
darkest ages of Roman paganism could parallel. 
That these foul and vicious lives could be led with- 
in the pale of the Methodist Church was a libel 
upon that great Christian organization. Therefore 
the authorities of the Church used their utmost ef- 
forts to quiet the agitation in New England. But 
all of their labors were of no avail. 

The territory of the country was expanding. 
The area of 66 slave soil" was about to be in- 
creased. "Free soil" parties entered the arena 
and demanded the interference of the national 
government. Here, at last, the old Federal the- 
ory oi an omnipotent Congress enlisted the con- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. I4I 

science of a rapidly increasing section of the Ameri- 
can people. Moral wrong must not be perpetrated, 
even if a " paper Constitution " sanctions it. Thus 
the Federal Constitution was placed in a crucible, 
and tried " as by fire;" until, by the ingenuities of 
sophistry, the skillful casuistry which is sometimes 
logical, even when it is not true, and the bold, de- 
fiant declaration that, the Constitution notwith- 
standing, 66 slavery must go ! 9 9 it came to pass that 
the only bond which bound the States together was 
regarded as a rope of sand. It was as the burned 
tow that only holds together when there is no 
strain upon it. The fires of philanthropic enthusi- 
asm had charred and burned the 6 'paper com- 
pact," and at last it was pronounced a " covenant 
with death and a league with hell! " 

The spirit which actuated these agitators could 
scarcely be equaled by that which prevailed in the 
period of the Civil War. N. P. Banks declared 
that he was willing, under certain circumstances, 
to ' ' let the Union slide." If slavery was to con- 
tinue, he said, "the Union cannot and ought not 
to stand." This man was Speaker of the national 
House of Representatives. Henry Ward Beecher 
declared that the Sharp rifle was a " truly moral 
agency," and that " you might as well read the 
Bible to buffaloes" as to the. slave-holders who 
were trying to obtain a foot-hold in Kansas. Mr. 
Burlingame said he " would have judges who be- 
lieved in a higher law, an anti-slavery Constitution, 
an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God! " 



I42 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



These are only specimens of a moderate charac- 
ter, compared with others which we shall have oc- 
casion to mention. 

Never in the history of our country have indus- 
trious agents aroused the evil passions of so many 
multitudes. In the very nature of the case retalia- 
tion was inevitable. Hatred of the men of the 
North was the return given by the exasperated 
people of the Southern States. Daily the breach 
was growing wider and broader, and the deadly 
determination of the parties to the struggle was 
growing by the hour. 

It was prior to this stage of the crusade that the di- 
vision of the Methodist Church occurred, in 1844. 
Never did a religious body divide its members and 
territory for greater or better cause, and never w T as 
the work of actual separation performed in a kind- 
lier spirit. Sadly and sorrowfully old friends took 
each other by the hand, and exchanged farewells 
that were never to be uttered on earth again. No 
feeling of vindictiveness possessed the hearts of 
the Southern delegates. They had long witnessed 
the approach of the trying hour, and while they 
would have preferred beyond all earthly things the 
perpetuation of the ecclesiastical union, they saw 
that that was impossible. It was a division of the 
Church or the utter annihilation of Methodism in 
the South. 

We have already expressed our belief that the 
division of the Church in 1844 was a blessing, and 
not a calamity. We believe that the separation 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. I43 



withdrew from the field of bitter polemics an im- 
mense amount of combustible material, which un- 
der other circumstances would have precipitated 
the armed conflict. Methodism has always pos- 
sessed a representative portion of the wealth and 
intelligence of the South. In every department 
of Christian growth and of intellectual excellence 
our Church has been in the van, side by side w r ith 
the foremost. If the people of the South, thirty 
years ago, were a community of barbarians, Meth- 
odism should bear much of the blame. If heart- 
less cruelties and nameless horrors were tolerated 
under sanction of the Christian Church, Method- 
ism must be charged with a very large share of the 
responsibility. The sin and shame are hers in as 
large a degree as they could have attached to any 
religious organization in the Southern States. 

We do not contend that our people were a com- 
munity of saints. They were neither better nor 
worse than similar numbers of American citizens 
in other sections of the Union. They were, with- 
out considerable exceptions, natives of the United 
States, and their civilization was purely American. 
The radical ideas that imported anarchists and her- 
esiarchs of every degree transferred from Europe 
to America were unknown among the Southern 
people. But they were hot-blooded, and quick to 
resent an injury. Brave and generous, they were 
ready to recognize courage anywhere and every- 
where else, but they became restive under the in- 
creasing diatribes and the bitter scorn to which 



*44 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



they were exhibited by the pulpit and the press ot 
the North. The separation ot the Southern Meth- 
odists, whilst yet their Northern brethren were 
calm and conservative and tenderly affectioned 
toward them, was a cause of meekness and pa- 
tience under perpetual provocation and constant 
insult. Even the amazing change of front, by 
which the General Conference of 1848 was made 
to antagonize the General Conference of 1S44. 
produced a comparatively slight impression upon 
the spirit of our people. Sympathy for the men 
of the North who were in a delicate and embar- 
rassing position was still a characteristic feature in 
the religious life of Southern Methodists. 

Between the two sessions of the General Con- 
ference — that of 1S44 and that of 1848 — -the terri- 
tory of the Union had been increased by acquisi- 
tions from Mexico, comprising a large part of the 
Western country — an area more than twice as large 
as the original States of the Union. This territory 
was open, under the Federal Constitution, to the 
Southern man. with his slave property. To extend 
the area of slave territory was a measure for which 
the masses of the Northern people were not only 
unprepared, but their opposition flamed into dec- 
larations equivalent to a proclamation of civil war. 
The first great battle-ground was the fugitive slave 
law. The original source of this enactment is 
found in the ''Articles of Confederation of the 
United Colonies of New England/' adopted in 
1643. Massachusetts was the largest and the 



EISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



H5 



leading colony in this confederation, and as early 
as 1646 the principle of the American fugitive 
slave law was adopted. The testimony upon this 
point may be found in Mr. Moore's " Notes on the 
History of Slavery in Massachusetts:" 

The commissioners of the United Colonies found occasion 
to complain to the Dutch Governor in New Netherlands, in 
1646, of the fact that the Dutch agent at Hartford had harbored 
a fugitive Indian woman slave, of whom they say in their let- 
ter: " Such a servant is parte of her master's estate, and a more 
considerable parte than a beast." A provision for the rendition 
of fugitives, etc., was afterward made by treaty between the 
Dutch and the English, (y Plymouth Colony Records," ix., 6, 
64, 190; Moore, 28.J 

From this early treaty stipulation the principle 
of the fugutive slave law passed into the Federal 
Constitution in 1787, and without it no union of the 
American States could have been formed. But 
the great variety of passions incident to the acqui- 
sition of immense territories in the South brought 
an array of influence and power which it is diffi- 
cult to estimate even in the light of forty years of 
history. But every event seemed to introduce a 
new foe and a new argument unfavorable to the 
South. The pressure was so great that Northern 
Methodists, the greatest and the best of them, were 
compelled to yield. Men who advised and advo- 
cated the separation of the Southern Conferences 
in 1844 were now vigorous and uncompromising 
in their denunciation of the 6 6 Plan of Separa- 
tion." The evidences of the tremendous pressure 
brought to bear upon Northern Methodists is for- 
10 



I46 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



cibly illustrated in the case of Dr. Charles Elliott. 
This distinguished minister was the first to move 
the adoption of the " Plan of Separation" re- 
ported by the committee of nine in 1844. The 
speech he made upon the occasion is worthy of 
quotation: 

Dr. Eiliot moved its adoption, and would explain his views 
upon the subject, without attempting to approach debate. He 
had the opportunity of examining it, and had done so narrowly. 
He believed it would insure the purposes designed, and Avould 
be for the best interests of the Church. It was his firm opinion 
that this was a proper course for them to pursue, in conformity 
with the Scriptures and the best analogies they could collect 
from the ancient Churches, as well as from the best organized 
modern Churches. All history did not furnish an example of 
so large a body of Christians remaining in such close and un- 
broken connection as the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was 
now found necessary to separate this large body, for it was becom- 
ing unwieldy. He referred to the Churches at Antioch, Alex- 
andria, and Jerusalem, which, though they continued as one, 
were at least as distinct as the Methodist Episcopal Church 
would be if the suggested separation took place. The Church 
of England was one under the Bishops of Canterbury and York, 
connected and yet distinct. In his own mind it; had been for 
years perfectly clear that to this conclusion they must eventu- 
ally come. Were the questions that now unhappily agitated 
the body dead and buried, there would be good reasons for pass- 
ing the resolutions contained in that report. As to their rep- 
resentation in that General Conference, one out of twenty was 
but a meager representation; and to go on as they had done, it 
would soon be one out of thirty. And the body was now too 
large to do business advantageously. The measure contemplated 
was not schism, but separation for their mutual convenience and 
prosperity. (" Debates in the General Conference," 1844, p. 219.) 



What must have been the outside pressure 
brought to bear upon Dr. Elliott, sufficient to 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



I 4 7 



cause him a few years after to write a large vol- 
ume, entitled "The Great Secession," in which 
he labors to prove that the act of 1844 was a schism, 
and an act of secession wholly without justification ! 
The annals of human frailties do not present a 
clearer case of external pressure producing a sac- 
rifice of consistency and a stultification of human 
judgment ! 

The distribution of the territory acquired by the 
Mexican War brought into the field of controversy 
the fiercest passions that can arouse the energies 
of man. Kansas became a battle-ground after 
California was appropriated by the North. The 
solemn edict went forth from New England, and 
the Central and Western States rallied to the prin- 
ciple that hereafter not an acre should be added to 
the domain of the South. We have already quoted 
the declaration of Henry Ward Beecher and oth- 
ers, in which Sharp's rifle was declared a " moral 
agency." The animus oi the North may be learned 
by brief extracts from the speeches of representa- 
tive men. Edmund Quincy, of Massachusetts: 

He wished for the dissolution of the Union, because he 
wanted Massachusetts to be left free to right her own wrongs. 
If so, she would have no trouble in sending her ships to Charles- 
ton and laying it in ashes. There was no State in the Union 
that would not contract, at a low figure, to whip South Caroli- 
na. Massachusetts could do it with one hand tied behind her 
back. He did not like such a republic as this. It was against 
his conscience. He hated and abhorred it. 

Wendell Phillips said : 

We confess that we intend to trample under foot the Consti- 



I48 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



tution of this country. Daniel Webster says, " You are a law- 
abiding people;" that the glory of New England is "that it is 
a law-abiding community." Shame on it if this be true ; if even 
the religion of New England sinks as low as its statute-book. 
But I say we are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked 
for it! 

Salmon P. Chase, afterward Secretary of the 
Treasury of the United States, declared that the 
people of this country owed it to the sovereign 
Ruler of the universe to disregard a portion of the 
Constitution of the United States, and to treat it as 
null and void. 

William H. Seward, afterward Secretary of 
State, said: 

The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitu- 
tion devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to wel- 
fare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Consti- 
tution, which regulates our authority over the domain and de- 
votes it to the same noble purposes. 

Henry Wilson, afterward Vice-president of the 
United States, declared in Boston that he compre- 
hended in his affections the whole country; " and 
when I say the whole country," he continued, " I 
want everybody to understand that I include in 
that term Massachusetts and the North." The 
same distinguished man declared that it was the 
intention of his party to " change the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and place men in that 
court who believe with its pure and immaculate 
chief-justice, John Jay, that our prayers will be 
impious to heaven while we sustain and support 
human slavery." 

Senator Sumner, in a memorable scene in the 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



I 49 



United States Senate in 1854, was as ked by Sena- 
tor Butler if he would obey the Constitution in re- 
gard to the rendition of fugitive slaves. Mr. Sum- 
ner answered: " Is thy servant a dog, that he 
should do this thing? " Mr. Butler replied: 66 Sir, 
standing here before this tribunal, where you 
swore to support it, you rise and tell me that you 
regard it the office of a dog to enforce it. You 
stand in my presence as a co-equal Senator, and 
tell me that it is a dog's office to execute the Con- 
stitution of the United States." 
William L. Garrison said: 

Jutice and liberty, God and man, demand the dissolution of 
this slave-holding Union, and the formation of a Northern Con- 
federacy, in which slave-holders shall stand before the law as 
felons and be treated as pirates. " No union with slave-holders! 
Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and 
glorious union of our own! " 

Joshua R. Giddings said: 

The gentleman, however, says that abolitionists look to the 
insurrection of the slaves. Sir, who does not look to that inevitable 
result, unless the slave States remove the heavy burdens which 
now rest upon the downtrodden and degraded people whom 
they oppress? Is there a slave-holder who can shut his eyes 
to the sure finale of slavery ? And why should we not expect it? 

I would not be understood as desiring a servile insurrection ; 
but I may say to Southern gentlemen that there are hundreds 
of thousands of honest and patriotic men who will " laugh at 
your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh." 

Hiram Brown, candidate for Lieutenant-govern- 
or of Massachusetts, declared that the overthrow 
of the South was to be accomplished in this way: 

The object to be accomplished is this: That the free States 
shall take possession of the government by their united votes. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Minor interests and old party affiliations and prejudices must be 
forgotten. We have the power in number; our strength is in 
union. 

One further quotation from William Lloyd Gar- 
rison will close this melancholy array : 

This Union is a lie; the American Constitution is a sham, 
an imposture, a covenant with death, an agreement with hell: 
and it is our business to call for a dissolution. Let that Union 
be accursed wherein three millions and a half of slaves can be 
driven to unrequited toil by their masters. I will continue to ex- 
periment no longer. It is all madness. Let the slave-holding 
Union go, and slavery will go with the Union down into the 
dust. If the Church is against disunion and not on the side of 
the slave, then I pronounce it of the devil. I say let us cease 
striking hands with thieves and adulterers, and give to the 
winds the rallying cry : * No union with slave-holders, social- 
ly or religiously, and up with the flag of disunion! " 

These extracts were from the speeches of men 
who filled the highest stations among their fellow- 
citizens in the North. They were representative 
men in every sense, as men of ability and as men 
of character and influence. Their numbers were 
increasing every year. One by one the barriers 
that kept back the dark waters of the flood were 
swept away, and at last the crowning event oc- 
curred which placed the party of Federal interfer- 
ence, and the party who asserted the omnipotence 
of Congress, in possession of every department of 
the general government. 

No intelligent man in the South could be ignorant 
of the tendency of events. Time and again we 
had been told that the agitators of New England 
were a feeble band, unable to do us harm, and 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 151 

that our fears were exaggerated; but the language 
of events was far otherwise. Can it be a cause of 
wonder that the South placed the most sinister 
construction upon the triumph of the Federal party 
and its principles in i860? Can it be called a 
strange thing that the Southern people felt them- 
selves doomed to destruction unless they arrayed 
themselves in the field of battle, and contested the 
argument of force as only such arguments can be 
contested — by the sword? 

Let us admit that they were mistaken in the 
main question. Let us admit that a servile insur- 
rection was not intended by the party that held 
possession of the government, and that millions of 
conservative and good people of the North would 
have deplored the horrors of a St. Domingo in the 
South. No one questioned that fact. But these 
good people deplored the agitation which sprung 
up in New England. They mourned over the bit- 
terness of men such as Garrison and Giddings, but 
these men had conquered. The Southern people 
found themselves limited to the territory they pos- 
sessed. " Slavery," it was said, " was now situ- 
ated like the scorpion : with a ring of fire encirc- 
ling it, there remains nothing for it to do but sting 
itself to death! " 

Let us acknowledge that the fears of 1861 were 
exaggerated — that there was really no danger of 
the knife and the torch under the directing hand 
of a well-organized and thoroughly equipped band 
of Torquemadas. Granting the fact of the exag- 



152 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

geration and the unreasonable anxieties of the 
time, we cannot fail to remember that even the 
city of Boston spent several sleepless nights be- 
cause of a rumored insurrection of negroes when 
the black population of that city numbered fewer 
persons than many a Southern gentleman could 
claim as his own property. 

That the Southern people misunderstood and 
misconstrued the purposes of the people of the 
North, may appear very plain and manifest to the 
reader who sits under the clear light of this peace- 
ful period, and reads with undisturbed and unruf- 
fled spirit the reminiscences of the terrible war of 
1861 ; but there are problems of history which no 
man has attempted to solve, and one of these prob- 
lems was the inexplicable conduct of the anti- 
slavery party previous to 1S61. Prof essing the ut- 
most friendship and kindness for the slave, they 
were implacable foes of the free negro. So long 
as the black man was the property of a master, 
they would move the very pillars of the republic in 
order to succor him and maintain his freedom; 
but the moment he became &free man they instant- 
lv deserted him and became his uncompromising 
enemies. This anomalous conduct could bear but 
one construction to the Southern mind. That con- 
struction was that enmity to the Southern slave- 
holder, and not sympathy for the negro, was the 
ruling principle of the crusade that was hastening 
the country toward the vortex of civil war. 

A.s the 'history of the Kansas-Nebraska struggle 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



!53 



has never been written, and probably will not be 
for many years to come, we cannot expect our 
younger readers to understand the full force of 
this singular inconsistency and its effect upon the 
Southern mind ; but it is due to truth that the fact 
of this strange contradiction should be clearly 
stated. We have already seen that the State of 
Massachusetts banished free negroes from her ter- 
ritory, and did not repeal this act of banishment 
until the abolition crusade of fifty years ago was 
well advanced. A sense of consistency seemed 
to induce this act of repeal, but what shall we say 
for those who followed in the footsteps of Massa- 
chusetts, and placed in the Constitution of their 
States a solemn ordinance forbidding free negroes 
to reside upon their soil? In the inaugural address 
of Gov. Walker, of Kansas, on the 27th of May, 
1857, we find the following paragraph : 

Those who oppose slavery in Kansas do not base their oppo- 
sition upon any philanthropic principles or any sympathy for 
the African race ; for in their so-called Constitution, framed at 
Topeka, they deem the entire race so inferior and degraded as to ex- 
clude them all forever from Kansas, whether they be bond or free, 
thus depriving them of all rights here and denying them even 
that they can be citizens of the United States, for if they are 
citizens they could not be constitutionally exiled or excluded 
from Kansas. Yet such a clause inserted in the Topeka Con- 
stitution was submitted by that convention for the vote of the 
people and ratified here by an overwhelming majority of the 
anti-slavery party. The party here, therefore, has in the most 
positive manner affirmed the constitutionality of that portion of 
the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
declaring that Africans are not citizens of the United States. 

But Kansas was not the only new State that 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



adopted an act for the banishment of free negroes. 
The State of Oregon, far distant in the great 
North-west, without passing through a civil con- 
vulsion of any kind, adopted the following remark- 
able section and made it a part of " the bill of 
rights " of the State of Oregon: 

Sec. — . Xo free negro or mulatto not residing in the State 
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall ever come, 
reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make 
any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative 
assembly shall provide by law for the removal by public officers 
of all such free negroes and mulattoes. and for their effectual 
exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons 
who shall bring them into the State or employ or harbor them 
therein. 

This section was submitted to the vote of the 
people, and the result of the election held in No- 
vember, 1857, was announced by the Governor of 
the Territorv. Upon the proposition to banish 
free negroes from Oregon the vote was 8,640 in 
favor and 1,081 votes against, whilst the vote for 
the adoption of the Constitution was 7.195. In 
other words, the proposition to adopt the edict of 
banishment received 1.445 votes in excess of the 
number voting for the Constitution itself. 

But this proscriptive legislation had been intro- 
duced four years before this period by the State 
of Illinois. In 1853 the Legislature of Illinois en- 
acted the following law: 

If any necrro or mulatto, bond or free, shall hereafter come 
into this State and remain ten days, with the intention of re- 
siding in the same, every such negro or mulatto shall be deemed 
guilty of a high misdemeanor, and for the first offense shall be 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 155 



fined the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered before any justice 
of the peace in the county where said negro or mulatto may be 
found. ... If the said negro or mulatto shall be found 
guilty, and the fine assessed be not paid forthwith, it shall be 
the duty of said justice to commit such negro or mulatto to the 
custody of the sheriff of said county, or otherwise keep him, 
her, or them in custody. . . . The said justice shall, at pub- 
lic auction, proceed to sell said negro or mulatto to any person 
who will pay said fine and costs for the shortest time ; and the 
said purchaser shall have a right to compel said negro or mu- 
latto to work for and serve out said time, etc. 

Four years after the adoption of this remarkable 
statute, and while the Kansas struggle was still in 
progress, the following advertisement appeared in 
an Illinois paper: 

State of Illinois, ) 
St. Clair County. ) ^ 

Legal Notice. W r hereas Jackson Redman, a mulatto, was, 
on the 7th day of April, A.D. 1857, complained against, arrested, 
and brought before me, the undersigned, a justice of the peace 
for said county, and was tried by a jury of twelve men, who 
found him guilty of high misdemeanor, and, as a first offense, 
fined him in the sum of $50 — agreeably to the provisions of the 
act of February 12, 1853, to prevent the immigration of negroes 
or mulattoes; and judgment having been rendered against the 
said Jackson Redman for the amount of said fine and costs of suit, 
which has not been paid, whereupon he was placed in the cus- 
tody of the sheriff of said county for safe-keeping until he is 
further dealt with as is required by law: This, therefore, is to 
give notice that at 1 o'clock, p.m., on the 18th day of April, 1857, 
at my office in Belleville, in said county, I will proceed to sell 
at public auction the services of said Jackson Redman to any 
person or persons who will pay said fine and costs for the short- 
est time, according to the provisions of the act aforesaid. 

Posted this 8th day of April, A.D. 1857. Casper T^hiell, 

Justice of the Peace. 

In the presence of facts like these — and we have 



156 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



given only a few specimens of the record from 
which volumes might be extracted — can it be a 
matter of surprise that the people of the South did 
not and could not understand the real purpose of 
the aggressive party which had taken possession 
of the government and ruled the people of the 
North? What was their object? Allowed to exist 
neither as a slave in the South nor as a free man 
in the North, the poor negro seemed marked out 
for destruction. He was not wanted in the North, 
where the most eloquent tributes were constantly 
paid to personal liberty. By the same persons his 
freedom was denied him in Illinois and his slavery 
denounced in Kentucky. 

Is it wonderful that, unable to reconcile such 
glaring contradictions, the people of the South 
drew from them the most sinister and alarming 
inferences? Slavery was to be destroyed b} r the 
strong hand of the government. Then the freed- 
men were to be prohibited from emigrating to other 
States. The labor which the ' 6 free States" did 
not want and would not have upon any terms was 
to be fixed irrevocably upon the South. In the 
event of resistance — and it was known that resist- 
ance was inevitable — the money of the anti-slavery 
agitators was to be used in promoting an uprising 
in every part of the doomed States. The torch and 
the knife were to be consecrated to the purposes 
of the party of liberation, and the terrors of St. 
Domingo were to be 6 'rehearsed" on the soil of 
the United States. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 157 



These were the inferences that were drawn from 
the course of events and the teachings of the par- 
ties hostile to the slave-holding States. Now that 
the thunder-storms of war have cleared the atmos- 
phere and the shedding of fraternal blood has ce- 
mented the respect and esteem of brave men for 
each other, we see that the great heart of the North 
was loyal to truth and principle and that the fears 
of the Southern people w r ere exaggerated. But no 
man can conceive, even at this day, the means or 
the instrument by which the great national convul- 
sion could have been averted. 

The only defensive plea that bears the sem- 
blance of argument m justification of the revolu- 
tionary conduct of the General Conference of 1848 
is founded upon that clause of the " Plan of Sepa- 
ration " which relates to the division of the prop- 
erty in the Book Concern. The publishing fund 
had been derived from profits on the sales of 
books, and from contributions taken in the bounds 
of the several Conferences. No one w r as disposed 
to dispute the fact that the Southern people had 
contributed an amount equal to their proportionate 
membership in the Church. So far as the equity 
of the case was concerned, there could be but one 
course open to the authorities; the South should 
receive her share of the common property. So 
the General Conference of 1844 voted; but there 
was a technical, if not a legal, difficulty in the 
way. 

The sixth restrictive rule, limiting the pow- 



158 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ers of a General Conference, says: " The Gen- 
eral Conference shall not appropriate the produce 
of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, 
to any purpose other than for the benefit of the 
traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and 
worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and 
children." In order to obviate the technical dif- 
ficulty in the way of a division of this property, 
the " Plan of Separation" proposed to add to the 
Article, as it stood, the words: "And to such oth- 
er purposes as may be determined upon by the 
votes of two-thirds of the members of the General 
Conference." By adopting this amendment, and 
sending it to the Annual Conferences for ratifica- 
tion, it was believed that every obstacle to a broth- 
erly settlement of all outstanding controversies 
would be secured. The vote on the adoption of 
this amendment was: Yeas, 147; nays, 12. The 
fourth resolution was adopted without a call for 
the yeas and nays, this resolution simply providing 
for a delivery of the property assigned to the 
Southern Church to the only authorized agents 
thereof. The fifth resolution stated the rule by 
which the division should be made. The number 
of traveling preachers in the Southern Conferences 
being ascertained, their proportion to the whole 
number of traveling preachers was to be the ratio 
by which the common property should be divided. 
Against this resolution there were only 13 nays to 
153 yeas. The sixth resolution related to some 
details in connection with the manner of deliver- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



1 59 



ing the property, and the yeas and nays were not 
demanded. 

Here we have, then, the only possible plea of 
contingent and conditional action by the General 
Conference of 1844. It is agreed upon all hands, 
by statesmen and jurists everywhere, that no Con- 
stitution makes provision for its own destruction. 
But is a division of a great body into two jurisdic- 
tions a destruction of the body itself ! Then the 
division of a large Conference into two or more 
organizations is a dissolution of the original body. 
The truth is that the separation of 1844 was intend- 
ed by those who represented the Southern Confer- 
ences to be an escape from discord, disunion, and 
schism, which existed then, and would grow day 
by day until no man could predict the result. To 
Southern minds the question of dividing the prop- 
erty of the Book Concern was not environed by 
any difficulty whatever. But, believing that the 
sentiment of the Church would sustain the broth- 
erly spirit of the Northern delegates in 1844, the 
Southern men agreed to refer the question to the 
Annual Conferences, in so far as the method of 
dividing the common property was concerned. 

As to the issue of division into tw r o independent 
Churches, there was nothing referred to the An- 
nual Conferences, for there was no need of such 
reference. Nothing in the Constitution of the 
Church existed then, as nothing exists now, that 
could prevent the adoption of the wisest method 
of providing for the Church government of the 



i6o 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



millions of souls which Providence had brought 
under the spiritual tuition of the Methodists of the 
United States. That there was no real legal hin- 
derance in the restrictive rule, preventing a di- 
vision of the Book Concern property, is manifest 
from the event. Notwithstanding the revolution- 
ary act of the General Conference of 1848, and 
a positive refusal to incorporate the suggested 
amendment of 1844, ^ e property was divided ac- 
cording to the proposed terms of the " Plan of 
Separation." At the end of a lawsuit in the high- 
est tribunals of the country, the judges of the civil 
courts examined the supposed prohibitory rule of 
the Discipline ; and the result of their examination 
was an opinion which declared the binding charac- 
ter of the compact of 1844, an(Jl ^ e constitutional 
power of the General Conference to adopt the 
" Plan v of Separation " was confirmed by the high- 
est legal authorities in America. 

If we were seeking for proofs of a ^ rehearsal " 
of the events that occurred between 1861 and 1865, 
we should turn with greater promise of success to 
the General Conference of 1848. The disregard 
for constitutional compacts which produced the 
war between the States was sadly foreshadowed 
in the act which repudiated the solemn compact 
of 1844. But we forbear. The historian will 
draw the full portrait which to-day can be taken 
only in outline. 

The first gun that was fired in 1861 announced 
the beginning of a revolution^ and the surrender at 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



161 



Appomattox declared its triumph. The theory of 
the Federal Government as advocated by Hamil- 
ton and Adams has conquered, and we have passed 
the period of the change without an effective pro- 
test from any quarter. The Federal Government 
is not only supreme, but it is omnipotent. If any 
great issue should touch the heart and enlist the 
sympathies of the people, mere constitutional bar- 
riers are but impediments of straw. Either by 
construction, by indirection, or by force the de- 
clared will of the people, expressed at the ballot- 
box, has become supreme, and limitations of mere- 
ly written contracts will be swept away as cobwebs 
in the face of a storm. 

Perhaps it is better as it is. In the great march 
of time and events, under the guidance of a gra- 
cious Providence, the errors of men, whether as 
individuals or in the capacity of nations, may find 
compensations and corrections where they are not 
suspected to exist. And as the years multiply, 
separating us from the terrors of the struggle of 
1861, the impartial hand of the Muse of History 
will sharpen the pen and fill the pages of the great 
volume of our story with the records w r hich preju- 
dice and passion may falsify, but cannot destroy. 
11 



CHAPTER VII. 

The Case of Canada — No Precedents Needed, but a Clear Case 
of " Dissolving the Union " — Memorials and Petitions from 
Canada — Constitutional Difficulties in the Way — No Vote on 
the Constitutional Question — Resolutions Giving Canada an 
Independent Church — Another Committee — Breakers Ahead 
— Division of Property in the Way — Dr. Fisk's Report Adopt- 
ed — Property Question Ignored — -Again before the Confer- 
ence of 1832 — A Plan of Settlement — Failure of the Plan — 
Remarkable Mode of Settlement — Doing in One Way What 
Was Refused in Another — Furnishing Capital without Cost — 
Same Principle Involved as Before — Curious Method«of Buy- 
ing Sunday-school Books — Power to Donate Property — Dr. 
Bangs makes a Distinction without a Difference — All Church 
Organizations Voluntary — No Indissoluble Church Union 
— Church and State Idea — Other Churches — Abolitionism 
Condemned in 1836 — Conference Careful to Put Itself Right 
— Action in 1840 — Changes in 1844 — Testimony of Distin- 
guished Lawyers — Emancipation Impossible — Facts of Bish- 
op Andrew's Case — Minister and Bishop Suspended for Not 
Doing Illegal Acts. 

Although we do not ask for precedent, in or- 
der that we may justify the adoption of the 
" Plan of Separation " by the General Conference 
of 1844, such a precedent did in fact exist. Not- 
withstanding the multitude of denials and disclaim- 
ers, the setting apart of the Canada Conference in 
1828 was an act essentially similar to that of 1844. 
The history may be briefly told. Early in the 
century the itinerant preachers of the New York 
Conferences had penetrated into Upper Canada. 
(.162) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



163 



In 1801 there were nearly one thousand members 
reported from Canada, and in 1827 nearly nine 
thousand communicants belonged to the recently 
constituted Canada Conference. 

Nothing could be more natural than the desire 
for a separate Church establishment in Canada. 
Political differences, if there were no other, would 
ultimately have compelled a separation. But the 
Canada brethren were highly appreciated on this 
side of the line, and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church would not surrender her jurisdiction with- 
out a struggle. Petitions and memorials poured 
in with increasing earnestness and power. At 
last, in the General Conference of 1828 a commit- 
tee on " Canada affairs " was appointed with Dr. 
Nathan Bangs as the Chairman. This committee 
reported adversely to the prayer of the Canadians, 
asserting that the General Conference had no con- 
stitutional power to sanction an independent 
Church organization in the territory of the Canada 
Conference. 

The report of this committee was permitted to 
lie upon the table for several days, and when the 
matter came up for discussion, William Ryerson, 
of Canada, offered a preamble and resolution in 
the form of a substitute for the report of the com- 
mittee. The first resolution in this substitute took 
opposite ground to that of the report, and recog- 
nized the constitutional power of the General Con- 
ference to dissolve the union between the Canada 
Conference and the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



164 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



After reciting the imperative reasons for the step, 
the substitute declares the method of separation: 

1. Resolved, Therefore, by the delegates of the Annual Con- 
ferences in General Conference assembled, that the compact 
existing between the Canada Annual Conference and the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in the United States be, and hereby is, 
dissolved by mutual consent. 

This resolution was passed by a vote of 104 yeas 
and 43 nays. But the remaining four resolutions, 
relating to other details of the separation, were re- 
ferred to a special committee of five, of which 
committee Wilbur Fisk became the Chairman. 
After long and patient consideration this commit- 
tee made their report. After declaring that "the 
jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
the United States has heretofore been extended over 
the ministers and members in connection with said 
Church in the Province of Upper Canada, by mu- 
tual consent" therefore, in obedience to the ear- 
nestly expressed desire of the Canada Conference, 
in the event of their election of a General Superin- 
tendent, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church were permitted to ordain the said Super- 
intendent, thus completing the establishment of an 
independent Methodist Episcopal Church in Can- 
ada. This report closed with a proposition to con- 
tinue the relation of Canada to the Book Concern. 

Dr. Fisk's report was adopted by a very large 
majority, 108 voting for, and only 22 against it. 
But this measure was not satisfactory to the Cana- 
da brethren. They claimed their relative share of 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the property in the Book Concern, which they 
doubtless intended to employ as part of the cap- 
ital of a publishing house of their own. We find 
the " Canada claims" at the front again in the 
General Conference in 1832. After a tedious 
and unprofitable discussion the committee having 
the matter in charge at last prepared a paper which 
received the sanction of the Conference. In this 
paper it was declared that ' ' constitutional difficul- 
ties" were in the way of the division of the funds, 
and therefore, to meet the necessities of the case, 
a proposition was framed, referring the question 
of a division of the funds to the Annual Confer- 
ences. The first resolution was in these words: 

Resolved, That if three-fourths of all the members of the 
several Annual Conferences who shall be present and vote on 
the subject shall concur herein, and as soon as the fact of such 
concurrence shall be certified by the Secretaries of the several 
Annual Conferences, then the Book Agents and Book Commit- 
tee in New York shall be, and they are hereby authorized and 
directed to settle with the Agents of the Canada Conference on 
the following principles and preliminaries, etc. 

Then the specific terms of the settlement are 
given. Canada is to receive the amount due her 
in the proportion that the number of the traveling, 
supernumerary, and superannuated preachers in 
the Canada Conference bear to the whole numberin 
the Church. There was no proposition to change 
or modify the sixth restrictive rule, and the very 
act of submitting a method of division declared 
the power of the Conference to make a division 
of the property. We can hardly conceive of a 



1 66 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



more complete surrender of the question of consti- 
tutional authority. The Annual Conferences were 
not asked whether they w T ere willing to divide the 
property at all, but whether they would consent to 
divide it in a particular manner. The result of 
the reference to the Annual Conferences was the 
defeat of the proposition. Instead of receiving a 
three-fourths majority, the measure was rejected 
by a vote of 599 for, and 758 against, a direct ma- 
jority of 159 against the proposition. 

The outcome was one of the most remarkable 
transactions in the history of the Church. In 1836, 
finding that the Annual Conferences had refused 
to divide the property, the General Conference 
devised a scheme, whereby the object desired 
could be obtained in spite of the adverse decision. 
The committee of 1836 declared that they regarded 
that decision as u final and conclusive " against the 
Canada claims. Nevertheless, this committee pre- 
pared a paper which became ' 6 an amicable and 
final arrangement of all the difficulties which have 
existed on the subject." 

The details of this arrangement are too long for 
our pages, but they may be expressed as follows: 

1. The General Conference has always claimed and exercised 
the right to regulate the discount at which books may be sold 
to wholesale purchasers. 

2. The Annual Conferences have refused to divide the capi- 
tal of the Book Concern, but inasmuch as Canada has been a 
good patron, and in order to perpetuate the friendly relations 
between the two bodies, a plan of settlement is proposed. 

3. The union of Canada with the Methodist Episcopal Church 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 167 

having been dissolved by mutual consent, it is agreed that the 
books of the general catalogue shall be sold to the Canada 
brethren at a discount of 40 per cent, so long as other wholesale 
buyers are entitled to receive 33^' per cent, discount. When 
the rate is decreased to 25 per cent., then Canada is to be allowed 
33 K P er cent - In other words, Canada is a preferred purchaser 
to the extent of 7 per cent, discount upon all books of this cata- 
logue, except " such books as may be reduced below the usual 
prices on account of rival publishers." 

4. Sunday-school books and tracts shall be furnished to the 
book steward of the Canada Conference at a premium of eight- 
een per cent, to be paid in general catalogue books at retail prices. 

5. This arrangement is to be " binding on the Methodist 
Book Concern until the first day of May, 1S52." 

Several provisions and guards for the right per- 
formance of this singular contract are attached as 
conditions to its fulfillment, but none of them pos- 
sesses any interest to the reader. The great ques- 
tion arises : What right had the General Conference 
to grant the claims of Canada, when the voice of the 
Church had been distinctly and loudly declared in 
opposition to such settlement? From the point of 
view taken by the Conference in 1832, and also in 
1836, how is it possible to maintain consistency of 
principle, when the Conference determined to do 
by indirection that which the Church declared 
should not be done by direct means? 

It is beyond question that the principle involved 
in this settlement is identical with that which is in- 
volved in a division of the property of the Book 
Concern. The gift of a bonus of 7 per cent, to 
Canada violates the sixth restrictive rule as abso- 
lutely as the division of the property into shares is 
construed to be a diversion of the proceeds to other 



l68 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



purposes than those nominated in that rule. To 
the extent that Canada is benefited, the preachers 
in the United States are injured. It is an unan- 
swerable argument, that the gift to a favored class 
is an injury to all other claimants. 

But what shall we say of the singular article that 
relates to Sunday-school books? We are not sure 
that we understand it, and for the sake of the good 
men who made the contract we are willing to be 
convinced of error, but there is but one interpre- 
tation that we can see, and the strange provision 
is explicable to our view only in one way. The 
Canada brethren are to buy " general catalogue " 
books at 40 per cent, discount, and to resell them 
to the Concern at retail — that is, at par prices. 
With this 40 per cent, gained from the Book Con- 
cern as capital, Canada buys Sunday-school books 
at 18 per cent, premium. In other words, the 
Book Concern furnishes the capital to be invested 
by the Canada Conference in Sunday-school books, 
giving as a bonus 22 per cent, on every dollar that 
is thus purchased. 

Let us suppose that the Canada brethren wished 
to supply themselves with $10,000 worth of Sun- 
day-school books. They were required to pur- 
chase $30,000 worth of General catalogue books 
at 40 per cent, discount, and then by the sale of 
these back to the House, at retail prices, they 
would make a profit of $12,000, and this sum at 
18 per cent, premium would furnish $10,169 worth 
of Sunday-school books. The Book Concern 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



169 



would not receive one dollar of actual cash in this 
transaction. Is it possible then to deny that there 
was an actual donation of the sum stated? And 
it was this -power to donate the -property of the 
Book Concern that formed the 6 6 constitutional ' ' 
question in the minds of members of the General 
Conference in 184.4. as as in J 8j2. 

Let it be observed, however, that the question 
of the power to divide the Church was never re- 
ferred to the Annual Conferences. It was only 
the property feature of the act of separation that 
was referred to them, and therein the action taken 
was precisely the same as that of 1844. Once the 
Conference voted 104 yeas to 43 nays, that the com- 
pact existing between between the Canada Annual 
Conference and the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the United States be, and hereby is dissolved by 
mutual consent. This resolution was afterward 
rescinded, the adoption of, another in its place hav- 
ing rendered it useless. The second proposition 
was an enabling act, authorizing Canada to form 
an independent Church, whenever that Conference 
saw fit to do so, and in that case authorizing the 
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church to com- 
plete the organization by the ordination of a Gen- 
eral Superintendent. 

Dr. Nathan Bangs, in his history of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, is very careful to explain 
the principle that governed the General Conference 
of 1828. He does not tell us that his own report 
declaring a plan of separation unconstitutional was 



170 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



laid aside for another which occupied different 
ground, but he is very confident that there was a 
difference between the " dissolution of the union " 
with Canada and a dissolution of the union w r ith 
any other Conference in the Church. Dr. Bangs 
says : 

But still a desire to grant, in some way, that which the Can- 
ada brethren so earnestly requested, and for which they plead- 
ed with much zeal, and Avhen with most pathetic appeals to 
our sympathy, it was suggested by a very intelligent member 
of the General Conference, the late Bishop Emory, that the 
preachers who went to Canada from the United States went in 
the first instance as missionaries, and that ever afterward when- 
ever additional help was needed, Bishop Asbury and his succes- 
sors asked for volunteers, not claiming the right to send them in 
the same authoritative manner in which they were sent to the 
different parts of the United States and Territories; hence it fol- 
lowed that the compact between us and our brethren in Cana- 
da was altogether of a voluntary character — we had offered them 
our services, and they had accepted them — and therefore, as 
the time had arrived when they were no longer willing to re- 
ceive or accept of our labors and superintendence, they had a 
perfect right to request us to withdraw our services, and we the 
same right to withhold them. (Bangs's " History of the M. E. 
Church," Vol. III., p. 391 •) 

There w r as not a Conference in the Southern 
States to w T hich the same description would not ap- 
ply. All of our Church territory was the result of 
missionary effort, and all of it was served by men 
who volunteered to go as missionaries, and by vol- 
untary agreement the bonds of Christian brother- 
hood were first formed, and always maintained. 
What right had any Methodist bishop to send any 
man against his will, and against the wall of the 
people, into the territory of Mississippi for exam- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 171 



pie? The question raised by Dr. Bangs is evident- 
ly prepared in view of the possible division of the 
Church at no distant day. As he wrote in 1841, 
the rumbling of eastern thunder could be faintly 
heard, and the violence of New England abolition- 
ists threatened at that moment to separate the 
Northern from the Southern Conferences. But 
Dr. Bangs was really delighted with the newly 
formed method of letting Canada depart in peace, 
whilst the South might be held firmly bound in 
" constitutional" bonds. He draws the following 
conclusion from Dr. Emory's clever suggestion: 

This presented the subject in a new and very clear light, and 
it seemed perfectly compatible with our power as a delegated 
Conference, and their principles as a part of the same body, 
thus connected l3y voluntary and conditional compact, either ex- 
pressed or implied, to dissolve the connection subsisting be- 
tween us, without any dereliction of duty or forfeiture of priv- 
ilege on either part. It v:as on this principle alone that the above 
agreement v:as based,. . . . These remarks are made to pre- 
vent any misconception respecting the principle on which the 
above connection was dissolved, and to show that it forms no 
precedent for a dissolution of the connection now subsisting be- 
tween the Annual and General Conferences in the United 
States. (" History," Vol. III., p. 393.) 

Dr. Bangs tells us, moreover, that there is but 
one method by which an Annual Conference can 
be removed from the jurisdiction of the General 
Conference. That method is the withdrawal of 
fellowship on account of corruption in doctrine, 
moral discipline, or religious practice. To all of 
this absurd reasoning it is only necessary to op- 
pose a few plain, immutable truths. 



172 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



What is the Church? It is a voluntary associa- 
tion of religious people, whose object is the salva- 
tion of their own souls, and that of all other per- 
sons whom they may be able to assist. Does not 
every intelligent man know that even in the de- 
fense of the moral character of the Church her 
authorities have no power to compel witnesses to 
give testimony in matters of fact? There is no 
analogy between Church courts and civil courts, 
for the very reason that the former administer 
under laws that are binding upon Church-mem- 
bers only because they yield voluntary allegiance 
to them. At any moment a member of the Meth- 
odist Church may cease to be a Methodist, and 
thus every attempt to enforce the laws of the 
Church, so far as he is concerned, will be of no 
avail. This is a vital principle in Protestant theol- 
ogy. Every man has the same right to choose his 
Church relations that he has to read the Bible and 
form his judgment of the divine law. 

This principle of voluntary membership being 
recognized, what more can be said of the member- 
ship of the Annual Conferences in the General 
Conference delegation? Whenever the delegates 
of one or more Annual Conferences are persuaded 
that the welfare of the Church requires their retire- 
ment from the General Conference, who can stay 
them? And if they have the right to retire, as Dr. 
Bangs confesses that they have, who shall deny to 
the General Conference the right to " dissolve the 
union " by mutual consent? u If an Annual Con- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



*73 



ference declare itself independent, out of the pale 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is its own 
act exclusively, and therefore the responsibility 
rests upon itself alone, for which the General Con- 
ference cannot be held accountable, because it was 
not a participant in the separation." (Page 392.) 
This is true, but when thirteen Annual Confer- 
ences declare it impossible to continue the eccle- 
siastical union any longer, and the General Con- 
ference admits the fact, and provides a "Plan of 
Separation ' ' formed upon equitable principles, then 
the whole matter stands upon precisely the same 
footing that the Canada Conference occupied in 
1828. Thus Dr. Bangs thought in 1844, for we 
find his name among those who voted for the " Plan 
of Separation 99 upon every call of the yeas and 
nays. 

It is doubtless true that no organized body con- 
tains in its Constitution a provision for its own de- 
struction. It is equally true that neither Church 
nor State is worthy of perpetuation when the ob- 
jects for which the union was formed have ceased 
to exist. All voluntary associations, and Churches 
in particular, are entitled to existence only so long 
as they serve the purposes of their creation. 
When the candlestick of the Church ceases to 
give light, it is the order of Divine Providence 
that the useless instrument should be laid aside, 
that another may take its place. 

The conception of an indissoluble union among 
Christian Churches, forming Conferences, Asso- 



174 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ciations, or Synods, is part of the heritage which 
the union of Church and State has left to man- 
kind. The Church is commensurate with the 
State, and for the tyranny of majorities there is 
no remedy. We see this doctrine clearly avowed 
in the language of Dr. Bangs. He speaks of two 
kinds of administration, one applying to Canada, 
as a voluntary union existed between that Confer- 
ence and the Methodist Episcopal Church, where- 
as the bond that held the other Conferences to- 
gether was a compulsory union. Only by revolu- 
tion in the State and secession in the Church can 
the most deplorable and intolerable evils be reme- 
died, according to this theory of irrevocable con- 
solidation. Every great Church in the United 
States has been called, from time to time, to bear 
evidence against this monarchial conception. Or- 
ganic changes have been witnessed, from time to 
time, among Congregationalists, Presbyterians, 
Baptists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans, as well as 
among ourselves. No charge of schism may be 
laid at the door of these Churches. 

Believing that a Southern Association is essen- 
tial to the welfare of their Churches in the South, 
our brethren of the Baptist Church maintain a 
Southern Baptist Convention which meets annual- 
ly. The Presbyterians of the South preserve their 
own General Assembly, and the interests of the 
kingdom of Christ require at the hands of his serv- 
ants a scrupulous regard for those conditions and 
environments that will best promote the cause of our 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Redeemer. In this spirit and for this purpose 
alone, the delegates from thirteen Annual Confer- 
ences offered their protests against the tyranny 
of a majority in the General Conference of 1844. 
Believing that the very existence of Methodism 
in the South was at stake, they made a plain, clear, 
and concise declaration, and published their views 
to all the world. The time had arrived when New 
England and the South could no longer be includ- 
ed in the same legislative jurisdiction of the 
Church. Repeated promises of peace and quiet 
had been broken. By the most solemn act by 
which the General Conference could be bound, 
that body had declared its opposition to abolition- 
ism. What, for example, could be more satisfac- 
tory than the action taken in 1836? In order that 
our readers may see the whole case, we copy from 
the Journal of the General Conference held in 
Cincinnati in 1836 as follows: 

Whereas, great excitement has prevailed in this country, on 
the subject of modern abolitionism, which is reported to have 
been increased in this city recently by the unjustifiable conduct 
of two members of the General Conference, in lecturing upon 
and in favor of that agitating topic; and whereas such a course 
on the part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon 
this body the suspicions and distrust of the community, and 
misrepresent its sentiments in regard to the point at issue;, and 
whereas, ; n this aspect of the case, a due regard for its own 
character, as well as a just concern' for the interests of the 
Church confided to its care, demand a full, decided, and un- 
equivocal expression of the views of the General Conference 
in the premises; therefore, 

Resolved, By the delegates of the Annual Conferences in 
General Conference assembled: 1. That they disapprove in the 



176 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



most unqualified sense the conduct of two members of the Gen- 
eral Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city 
recently upon and in favor of modern abolitionism. 

2. Resolved^ That they are decidedly opposed to modern ab- 
olitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to 
interfere in the civil and political relation between master and 
slave as it exists in the slave-holding States of this Union. 

3. Resolved^ That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be 
published in our periodicals. 

The vote on the first resolution was 122 yeas, 
and 11 nays. On the first member of the second 
resolution the vote was 120 yeas, 14 nays. The 
second part of the resolution was adopted by 137 
yeas; nays, none. What more could Southern 
men ask than this? They could only ask the 
General Conference to be true to its own position. 

Four years later, in 1840, a petition was pre- 
sented from certain citizens of Virginia, local 
preachers who had been denied ordination by the 
Baltimore Conference solely because they were 
owners of slaves. Dr. Bascom presented, and 
the General Conference adopted, a report upon this 
subject. The resolution concluding the report was 
adopted by the Conference, and there would seem 
to be nothing more conclusive than the fact that 
the General Conference adhered to its position in 
1836. The resolution says: 

Resolved^ By the delegates of the several Annual Confer- 
ences assembled, that under the provisional exception of the 
general rule of the Church on the subject of slavery, the simple 
holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in 
States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipa- 
tion, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, consti- 
tutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



177 



to the various grades of office known in the ministry of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church; and cannot, therefore, be consid- 
ered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such elec- 
tion and ordination. 

This was done in 1840. Four years afterward 
Rev. F. A. Harding was suspended from his min- 
isterial standing by the Baltimore Conference for 
refusing to manumit certain slaves which came 
into his possession by marriage. The legal question 
was propounded to two of the best lawyers in 
Maryland, and they gave the following answers. 
Judge Key says : 

The Rev. Mr. Harding having married Miss Swan, who, at 
the time of her marriage, was entitled to some slaves, I am re- 
quested to say whether he can legally manumit them or not? 
By an act of Assembly no person can manumit a slave in Mary- 
land ; and by another act of our Assembly, a husband has no 
other or further right to his wife's slaves than their labor 
while he lives. He can neither sell ?wr liberate them. Neither 
can he and his wife, either jointly or separately, manumit his slaves, 
by deed, or otherwise. A reference to the Acts of Assembly 
of Maryland will show this. Edmund Key. 

Prince George County, April 25, 1844. 

A lawyer of equal ability, the Hon. William D. 
Merrick, testified as follows: 

At the request of Mr. Harding, I have to state that, under 
the laws of Maryland, no slave can be emancipated to remain 
in that State, nor unless provision be made by the person eman- 
cipating him for his removal from the State, which removal must 
take place unless, for good and sufficient reasons, the competent 
authorities grant permission to the manumitted slave to remain. 

There has lately (winter of 1843) been a statute enacted by 
the State Legislature, securing to married females the proper- 
ty (slaves of course included) which was theirs at the time of 
their marriage, and protecting it from the power and liabilities 
of their husbands. William D. Merrick. 

12 



I78 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Mr. Harding appealed to the General Confer- 
ence, and that body, in the face of the resolution 
of 1840, sustained the act of suspension by a vote 
of in yeas to 53 nays. Thus they suspended a 
man from the ministry for not doing that which the 
laws of the State would not permit him to do ! 

The case of Bishop Andrew was next in order, 
and his letter to the Committee on Episcopacy 
gives a clear view of all the facts : 

To the Committee on Episcopacy. 

Dear Brethren: In reply to your inquiry, I submit the fol- 
lowing statement of all the facts bearing on my connection 
with slavery. Several years since an old lady of Augusta, Ga., 
bequeathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust that I should take care 
of her until she should be nineteen years of age; that with her 
consent I should then send her to Liberia; and that in case of 
her refusal, I should keep her, and make her as free as the 
laws of the State of Georgia would permit. When the time ar- 
rived, she refused to go to Liberia, and of her own choice re- 
mains legally my slave, although I derive no pecuniary profit 
from her. She continues to live in her own house, on my lot; 
and has been, and is at present, at perfect liberty to go to a free 
State at her pleasure ; but the laws of the State will not admit 
of her emancipation, nor admit such deed of emancipation to 
record, and she refuses to leave the State. In her case, there- 
fore, I have been made a sla re-holder legally, but not with my 
own consent. 

2. About five years since, the mother of my former wife left 
to her daughter, not to me, a negro boy, and as my wife died 
without a will more than two years since, by the laws of the 
State he becomes my property. In this case as in the former, 
emancipation is impracticable in the State; but he shall be at 
liberty to leave the State whenever I shall be satisfied that he 
is prepared to provide for himself, or I can have sufficient secu- 
rity that he will be protected and provided for in the place to 
which he may go. 

3. In the month of January last I married my present wife, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



179 



she being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from her 
former husband's estate, and belonging to her. Shortly after 
our marriage, being unwilling to become their owner, regard- 
ing them as strictly hers, and the law not permitting their 
emancipation, I secured them to her by a deed of trust. 

It will be obvious to you from the above statement of facts, 
that I have neither bought nor sold a slave; that, in the only 
two instances in which I am legally a slave-holder, emancipa- 
tion is impracticable. As to the servants owned by my wife, I 
have no legal responsibilities in the premises, nor could 
my wife emancipate them if she desired to do so. I have thus 
plainly stated all the facts in the case, and submit the statement 
for the consideration of the General Conference. 

James O. Andrew. 

Notwithstanding the declaration of 1840, that 
the ownership of slaves " constituted no legal bar- 
rier to the election or ordination " of ministers, 
and hence to the exercise of any ministerial office 
in the Church, the General Conference of 1844 
virtually deposed Bishop Andrew for failing to do 
that which he had no power to do. 

Thus we have arrived at the crisis which event- 
uated in the " Plan of Separation " in 1844. W e 
have seen the Church divided in 1828, the Canada 
Conference made independent, and a division of 
the Book Concern by a species of indirect leg- 
islation. Starting out as late as 1836 with the most 
solemn assurance of opposition to abolitionism, 
and determination not " to interfere in the civil 
and political relation betw r een master and slave as 
it exists in the slave-holding States," we find in 
eight years a bishop deposed and a minister sus- 
pended from the ministry because they did not 
violate the laws of the States in which they lived ! 



CHAPTER VIII. 



Bishop Soule Laments the Absence of Forethought — Charge of 
Secession an After-thought — Report of Committee on Organ- 
ization at Louisville — Ruin to Southern Methodism Prevent- 
ed — Conservative Influence of the Southern Church — Major- 
ity of 1S44 Recognize the " Plan of Separation " as a Finality 
— Bishops Recognize the Division of the Church — Council 
of July, 1845 — Bishop Morris Refuses to Aid Disruption — 
Declares the Contingency Transpired — Will Not Undertake 
a Course of Nullification — Leaves That to Editors — Bishops 
Know Their Duty Better — " Plan of Separation " Not to Be 
Voted Upon by the Annual Conferences — Only the Alter- 
ation of Sixth Restrictive Rule Submitted to -Vote — Bishop 
Morris Present at Louisville in 1845 — Opportunities to Know 
Southern Feeling and Sentiment. 

ON the 26th of September, 1844, four months aft- 
er the adjournment of the General Conference, 
Bishop Soule wrote to Bishop Andrew that " Many 
of our Northern brethren seem now deeply to de- 
plore the division of their Church." There was 
no question then as to the fact of a division, and 
Bishop Soule exclaimed: " O that there had been 
forethought as well as after-thought!" 

It is easy to demonstrate that the charge of 
66 secession" was an after-thought on the part of 
our brethren of the North. The various pleas that 
have been entered in the case are without avail. 
The proofs are indisputable that the " Plan of Sep- 
aration " was adopted as the only possible measure 
that could restore peace and harmony to the 
Church. In the North, among "conservative" 
(180) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



181 



men at least, the agitation of abolitionist dema- 
gogues would be so far discounted that it would 
put it out of their power to create a schism in the 
Church. New England was no longer responsible 
for the sin of a slave-holding bishop, and having 
sins of her own in sufficient quantity to command 
the energies of the reformers of mankind, it was 
believed that the people of Zion might have rest. 
The Southern Conferences, pursuing their own 
calling, and making ready for the orderly arrange- 
ment of the Lord's House, w r ere cherishing the 
hope that at last there would be peace in all the 
land. 

The attitude of the Southern Church will be 
clearly seen in the following extract from the re- 
port of the Committee on Organization, adopted 
in 1845 at Louisville. Throughout the entire 
South the vote had been taken upon the question 
of independent organization, and out of nearly 
500,000 members there were not more than five in 
one hundred who were opposed to the movement, 
and these negative voices were chiefly on the ex- 
treme border of our territory. The report says: 

The whole power of legislation is in the General Conference, 
and as that body is now constituted the Annual Conferences of 
the South are perfectly powerless in the resistance of wrong, 
and have no alternative left them but unconditional submission. 
And such submission to the views and action of the Northern 
majority on the subject of slavery, it is now demonstrated, must 
bring disaster and ruin upon Southern Methodism, by rendering the 
Church an object of distrust on the part of the State. In this way 
the assumed conservative power of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, with regard to the civil union of the States, is to a great 



l82 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



extent destroyed, and we are compelled to believe that it is the 
interest and becomes the duty of the Church in the South to 
seek to exert such conservative influence in some other form ; and 
after the most mature deliberation and careful examination of 
the whole subject, we know of nothing so likely to effect the 
object as the jurisdictional separation of the great Church par- 
ties, unfortunately involved in a religious and ecclesiastical 
controversy about an affair of State — a question of civil policy 
— over which the Church has no control, and with which, it is 
believed, she has no right to interfere. Among the nearly five 
hundred thousand ministers and members of the Conferences 
represented in this Convention, we do not know one not deeply 
and intensely interested in the safety and perpetuity of the Na- 
tional Union, nor can we for a moment hesitate to pledge them 
all against any cause of action or policy not calculated, in their 
judgment, to render that union as immortal as the hopes of patriot- 
ism would have it to be ! 

Here we have a distinct declaration of several 
important truths : 

1. The South was in a minority in the General Conference; 
and however conscientious the majority might be, the suspen- 
sion of Bishop Andrew proved that the minority was" utterly 
helpless. 

2. The honesty of purpose which actuated the Northern ma- 
jority would continue to force upon the South a series of radical 
measures which must prove disastrous to Southern Methodism. 

3. By setting up a distinct and independent Church organiza- 
tion, the conflicting elements would be removed from contact 
with each other, and peace would ensue. 

4. In taking this position the Southern delegates believed that 
they were doing the utmost in their power for the preservation 
of the National Union. 

Upon the question of the tyranny of the major- 
ity over the minority, we have a remarkable deliv- 
erance in the reply of the majority to the protest 
of the minority. As it plainly declares the purpose 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



I8 3 



of the action in 1844, we copy the entire para- 
graph ; 

The proposition for a peaceful separation (if any must take 
place), with which the protest closes, though strangely at va- 
riance with much that precedes, has already been met by the 
General Conference. A?id the readiness -with -which that body (by 
a vote which would doubtless have been unanimous but for the 
belief that some entertained of the unconstitutionality of the 
measure) granted all that the Southern brethren themselves could 
ask, in such an event, must forever stand as a practical refutation of 
any assertion that the minority have been subjected to the tyranny 
of the majority. (" Debates," p. 232.) 

The English language cannot express more plain- 
ly the fact that the " Plan of Separation " was a 
division of the Church by the almost unanimous 
consent of the parties concerned. At a meeting 
of the bishops in New York, in July, 1845, the fol- 
lowing resolutions were adopted: 

1. Resolved, That the plan reported by the select committee 
of nine at the last General Conference, and adopted by that 
body, in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical connection, should such a 
course be found necessary by the Annual Conferences in the 
slave-holding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation 
in the premises, so far as our administration is concerned, 

2. Resolved, That in order to ascertain fairly the desire and 
purpose of these societies bordering on the line of division, in 
regard to their adherence to the Church, North or South, due 
notice should be given of the time, place, and object of the 
meeting for the above purpose, at which a Chairman and Secre- 
tary should be appointed, and the sense of all the members pres- 
ent be ascertained, and the same be forwarded to the bishop 
who may preside at the ensuing Annual Conferences; or for- 
ward to said presiding bishop a written request to be recognized 
and have a preacher sent them, with the names of the majority 
appended thereto. 

A true copy. Edmund S. Janes, Secretary. 



i§4 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Two months after this action of the bishops, and 
subsequent to the organization of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, in May, 1S45, Bishop 
Morris was requested to visit the Missouri Confer- 
ence in the interest of certain parties who were 
opposed to the South. We copy Bishop Morris's 
reply: 

Burlington, Ia., September 8, 1S45. 

Rev. Wilson S. McMurry — Dear Brother; Your letter of the 
1st inst. is now before me. The resolutions to which you refer 
did pass in the meeting of the bishops in New York in July, 
unanimously. We all believe they are in accordance with the 
''Plan of Separation M adopted by the General Conference. 
Whether that plan was wise or foolish, constitutional or uncon- 
stitutional, did not become us to say, it being our duty, as bish- 
ops, to know what the General Conference ordered to be done in a 
certain contingency, which has actually transpired, and to carry it 
out in good faith. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the resolu- 
tions were not immediately published, but it was not thought 
necessary at the time they passed. Still our administration will 
be conformed to them. Bishop Soule's notice was doubtless 
founded upon them. 

As I am the responsible man at Indiana Conference, October 
S. it will not be in my power to*attend the Missouri Conference: 
nor do I think it important to do so. Were I there, I could not, 
with my views of propriety and responsibility, encourage sub- 
division. If a majority of the Missouri Conference resolve to 
come under the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that would 
destrov the identity of the Missouri Conference as an integral 
part of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As to having two 
Missouri Conferences, each claiming to be the true one, and de- 
manding the dividends of the Book Concern, and claiming the 
Church property, that is the very thing that the General Con- 
ference designed to prevent. by adopting the amicable " Plan of 
Separation It is true that minority preachers have a right ac- 
cording to the general rule in the " Plan of Separation," to be 
recognized still in the Methodist Episcopal Church: but, in ol- 
der to do that, they must go to some adjoining Conference in the 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



185 



Methodist Episcopal Church. The border charges may, also, 
by a majority of votes, decide which organization thev will ad- 
here to ; and if reported in regular order to the Conference from 
which they wish to be supplied, or to the bishop presiding, they 
will be attended to, on either side of the line of separation. But if 
any brethren suppose the bishops will send preachers from the 
North to interior charges, South, or to minorities of border 
charges, to produce disruption, or that they will encourage mi- 
nority preachers on either side of the line to organize opposition 
lines, by establishing one Conference in the bounds of anoth- 
er, they are misled. That would be departing from the plain 
letter of the rule prescribed by the General* Conference in the 
premises. Editors may teach such nullification and anszver for it, 
if they vsill; but the bishops all understand their duty better than to 
indorse such principles. I acknowledge that, under the prac- 
tical operation of the " Plan of Separation " some hard cases 
may arise, but the bishops do not make and have not the 
power to relieve them. It is the fault of the rule, and not of 
the executive administration of it. In the meantime there is 
much more bad feeling indulged in respecting the separation 
than there is necessity for. If the "Plan of Separation " had 
bee?i carried out in good faitli and Christian feeling on both sides, it 
would scarcely have been felt any more than the division of an An- 
nual Cojiference. It need not destroy confidence or embarrass 
the work, if the business be managed in the spirit of Christ. I 
trust the time is not very far distant when brethren, North and 
South, will cease their hostilities, and betake themselves to 
their prayers and other appropriate duties in earnest. Then, 
and not till then, may we expect the Lord to bless us as in for- 
mer days. I am, dear brother, 

Yours respectfully and affectionately, 

Thomas A. Morris. 
Let the reader examine this letter in connection 
with the answer to the Southern protest and the 
resolutions adopted by the bishops in July. The 
General Conference majority declared that they 
have " granted all that the Southern brethren 
themselves could ask," in the event of a peaceful 



l86 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



separation. Admitting the fact that the " Plan of 
Separation" makes this provision, and by that 
plan the thirteen Southern Conferences were rec- 
ognized as the sole judges of the necessity for sepa- 
ration, nothing more was necessary but to hear 
from the Southern Conferences. In the fall of 
1844 and the spring of 1845 every Southern Con- 
ference voted for the organization of an independ- 
ent Church. The approach to unanimity was so 
great that there was scarcely any need for a discus- 
sion of the proposition. By ninety- five votes out 
of every hundred the half-million of Southern 
Methodists entered into the new organization, and, 
with the exception of a few instances on the bor- 
der, similar to the one that was so severely re- 
buked by Bishop Morris, there was no occasion for 
strife or ill feeling. It was the desire of the 
Southern Church that the most fraternal relations 
should be sustained with the brethren of the North, 
and we did all that was in our powerto secure that 
result. It is impossible to deny that the General 
Conference of 1844 adopted the ' 4 Plan of Separa- 
tion " with the design of creating an independent 
Church in the South. It cannot be denied, also, 
that the only question that was left to be voted 
upon by the Annual Conferences was the division 
of the property of the Book Concern. It vjcis an 
after-thought, and one that came manv months aft- 
er the actual division, that the whole 6i Plan of 
Separation*' was to be voted upon in the Annual 
Conferences. Not a syllable to that effect is to be 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 187 

found in the report of the committee of nine, and 
there was no more need for such a vote than there 
was in the case of Canada. All Church union is 
a voluntary union, and bv mutual consent this 
union was dissolved in 1S44 as certainly as it was 
in 1828. 

Directly witnessing to this view of the case 
we have the testimony and the action of the North- 
ern bishops. The Southern Methodist Conven- 
tion in Louisville in May, 1845, organized the 
Southern Church, and two months afterward the 
Northern bishops met in New York to make a 
plan of their work. In that meeting they declared 
that the " Plan of Separation " was binding upon 
them, and by that plan a distinct ecclesiastical 
connection for the South was provided for. Inas- 
much as. in the language of Bishop Morris, the 
certain contingency had actually transpired, in 
obedience to the order of the General Conference, 
the bishops governed themselves accordingly, and 
they agreed upon the method by which the sen- 
timent of border congregations should be ascer- 
tained. 

In accordance with this agreement. Bishop Mor- 
ris refused to attend the Missouri Conference. 
He would have no part of the responsibility in 
producing disruption,' ? and any other course 
than loyal obedience to General Conference action 
he pronounced 6fi nullification." He believed that 
the "Plan of Separation." if carried out in a 
Christian spirit, "would scarcely have been felt 



1 88 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



any more than the division of an Annual Confer- 
ence." Let it be remembered that Bishop Morris 
was present at the Louisville Convention in 1845, 
and that he had ample opportunities to appreciate 
the spirit of the representative men of the South. 
He expressed, in the sentiment we have just quot- 
ed, the earnest hope and purpose of the South, that 
peace and concord should govern in both sections. 
The utmost harmony prevailed in the South. By 
whose means, then, were discord and bitterness in- 
troduced into this final settlement of a long con- 
troversy ? The leadership in the act of repudiation 
will soon appear from the records of the General 
Conference of 1848. 



CHAPTER IX. 



General Conference of 1848 — No Southern Delegate Present — 
Baltimore, the "Breakwater" Conference — Boundary Lines 
— Division of the Church Acknowledged — Dr. Pierce Pres- 
ent — His Letter to the Conference — Various Methods of 
Preparing to Reject Him — The Final Method — Ungenerous 
Treatment — Painful Exhibition of Party Feeling — No Fra- 
ternity with the South — Extraordinary Act — Pretended 
Infractions of the " Plan of Separation" — Excuses for Repu- 
diation — Treatment of Bishop Soule — His Letter to the Con- 
ference — His Presence at Pittsburg Ignored. 

rpHE tenth delegated General Conference of the 



X Methodist Episcopal Church met in the city of 
Pittsburg, Pa., in May, 1848. There were 151 
members, from the same territory that furnished 
138 members in 1844. From the territory occu- 
pied by the thirteen Southern Annual Conferences 
there was not one delegate in 1848. The Baltimore 
Conference was the only body occupying slave- 
holding territory that was represented at Pittsburg. 
The old "Breakwater" Conference occupied a 
peculiar position. Its territory was in slave-holding 
States; but the Maryland portion, in which it was 
strongest, for many years had been the battle- 
ground of negro emancipation. At the first cen- 
sus, in 1790, free negroes constituted only 7 per 
cent, of the negro population. In 1850 they com- 
prised 45 per cent, of the colored population. 
Within the Baltimore Conference owners of slaves 




(189} 



I9O BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

had sustained a greater pecuniary loss by emanci- 
pation than all of the Northern States had sus- 
tained in fifty years. 

It is not competent for any impartial spectator 
(and certainly no honest historian will be less than 
that) to accuse the Baltimore Conference of bad 
faith in its treatment of the South. In that Con- 
ference the question first arose, and in that Con- 
ference the measures which culminated in Bishop 
Andrew's suspension were first matured and exe- 
cuted, in the celebrated case of the Rev. Mr. 
Harding. The charge of inconsistency lies in full 
force against the Baltimore brethren, but they be- 
lieved that their action would secure peace and 
harmony. How ineffectually they labored to that 
end the history of the country shows. The Balti- 
more Conference sacrificed the South, and did not 
stay the progress of the Anarchists who first out- 
raged and then represented " New England Sen- 
timent/' 

Norval Wilson, of Baltimore, on the second day 
of the General Conference of 1848, offered a res- 
olution on the subject of the boundary of the two 
Churches. This resolution w T as tabled, and that 
action became significant. 

" Brother Elliott presented two memorials from 
Kentucky, asking redress for the grievances grow- 
ing out of division line." Even the author of 
"The Great Secession" had not, as yet, accus- 
tomed himself to the word " secession." 

Next we have a document that exhibited the 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



I 9 I 



character and purposes of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. " The following communication," 
says the Journal, " from Dr. L. Pierce was read, 
and referred to the Committee on the State of 
the Church: " 

To the Bishops and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in General 
Conference Assembled. 

Reverend and Dear Brethren: The General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, appointed me as their 
delegate to bear to you the Christian salutations of the Church, 
South, and to assure you that they sincerely desire that the two 
great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists, North and South, should 
maintain at all times a warm, confiding, and brotherly fraternal 
relation to each other; and that through me they make this 
offer to you, and very ardently desire that you, on your part, 
will accept the offer in the same spirit of brotherly love and 
kindness. 

The acceptance or rejection of this proposition, made by 
your Southern brethren, is entirely at your disposal; and as my 
situation is one of painful solicitude until this question is decid- 
ed, you will allow me to beg your earliest attention to it. 

And I would further say, that your reply to this communi- 
cation will most gratify me if it is made officially in the form of 
resolutions. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours in the unity 
of Wesleyan Methodism, L. Pierce, 

Delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Pittsburg, May 3, 1848. 

On the 5th of May the following report was pre- 
sented by the Committee on the State of the 
Church : 

That they have had under consideration the letter from the 
R.ev. Dr. Pierce, and that they recommend to the General Con- 
ference the adoption of the following preamble and resolution: 

Whereas, a letter from Rev. L. Pierce, D.D., delegate of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, proposing fraternal rela- 
tions between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Meth- 



192 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



odist Episcopal Church, South, has been presented to this Con- 
ference; and whereas there are serious questions and difficulties 
existing between the two bodies ; therefore, 

Resolved, That while we tender to the Rev. Dr. Pierce all 
personal courtesies, and invite him to attend our sessions, this 
General Conference does not consider it proper, at present, to 
enter into fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. George Peck, Chairman. 

Upon the reading of this extraordinary paper, in 
which a Christian body refused to receive a fra- 
ternal messenger, or to enter into fraternal rela- 
tions with a Christian Church, a great variety of 
amendments was offered. 

Dr. Holdich moved to amend by inviting Dr. 
Pierce to take a seat in the house, and " address 
us on the subject of his mission." On the subject 
of " fraternization," the Northern brother was in 
search of further light, and did not propose to give 
any immediate decision. 

" J. D. Bridge moved to lay Brother Holdich's 
substitute on the table. Carried." 

Dr. Tomlinson moved that there was nothing in 
the action proposed that would exclude any pro- 
posal from Dr. Pierce looking to a settlement of 
difficulties between the two Churches. 

Dr. Durbin moved a substitute to this effect: 

Resolved, That in so far as Dr. Pierce may come with author- 
ity to adjust the difficulties between the two bodies, we will cor- 
dially confer with him. 

This was certainly as non-committal as any prop- 
osition could be, but Dr. Durbin's substitute 
failed. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



193 



Then the vote was taken on Dr. Tomlinson's 
proposition, and it was adopted. 

The paper finally appeared in the following 
shape : 

Whereas a letter from Rev. L. Pierce, D.D., delegate of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, proposing fraternal rela- 
tions between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, has been presented to this Con- 
ference; and whereas there are serious questions and difficulties 
existing between the two bodies; therefore, 

Resolved, That while we extend to the Rev. Dr. Pierce all 
personal courtesies, and invite him to attend our sessions, this 
General Conference does not consider it proper, at present, to 
enter into fraternal relations with" the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. 

Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be 
so construed as to operate as a bar to any propositions from Dr. 
Pierce, or any other representative of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, toward the settlement of existing difficulties be- 
tween that body and this. George Peck, Chairman, 

This paper, as amended, was then passed by a 
vote of yeas 147, nays none! 

The most extraordinary act, we venture to as- 
sert, that is recorded in the annals of ecclesiastical 
government ! Does the reader perceive the object 
of this action? The General Conference had de- 
termined that the common property in the Book 
Concern should not be divided. Although the 
South had contributed the larger part of the orig- 
inal stock, it was determined that she should re- 
ceive no benefit from it. To receive Dr. Pierce 
in his official character would vitiate the case of 
the North if the Southern Church should resolve 
to go to law for the purpose of compelling a division. 
13 



i 9 4 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



If these men of 1848 had put their wits together 
in order to shape the most effective insult to Dr. 
Pierce, they could have succeeded no better than 
the)' did, as the record of the Conference shows. 

Mr, Collins moved, when the resolution was un- 
der discussion, to amend, bv inserting " to take a 
seat within the bar/' instead of "to attend our 
sessions." This motion was laid on the table. 

The next day the following resolution was 
passed : 

Resolved, That on the vote of yesterday, laying the motion 
of J. A. Collins, inviting Rev. Dr. Pierce within the bar. on the 
table, we did not intend to exclude Dr. Pierce, but believed the 
object of the amendment to be fully included in the original re- 
port. 

Dr. Pierce was kindly furnished with a copy of 
the resolution ! 

Respect for the instincts of refined gentlemen 
ought to be a characteristic of Methodist preachers. 
Whether this treatment of Dr. Pierce could have 
been witnessed in any other part of the giotfe, we 
think a grave question of doubt. That the men 
who thus violated all the requirements of Christian 
courtesy, and keenly shaped an insult under the 
guise of a compliment, were under the influence 
of an irresistible dispensation of New England 
sentiment we think highly probable. 

The following we copy from the journal, page 
26: 

The rules were suspended, to hear the appointments for 
preaching read. 

After some remarks by the Chairman, referring to the action 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



*95 



of yesterday in the case of Dr. Pierce, Brother Davis moved to 
recommit the report, with the understanding that the commit- 
tee are at full liberty to appoint any of our Southern brethren 
to preach that they shall judge proper; which, on motion of 
Brother Hall, was laid on the table. 

The Chairman of the Committee on Appointments said that 
he stood corrected by the vote of the morning relative to Dr. 
Pierce. 

We know not what the reader will be able to 
make of this record. It seems that the name of 
Dr. P'^rce was not in the list of preachers appoint- 
ed by the committee to occupy the pulpits on the fol- 
lowing Sabbath. x\ kind-hearted Baltimore brother 
called attention to the omission, and in the elegant 
language of diplomacy endeavored to get the matter 
into shape without compromising the Conference 
with the recognition of Dr. Pierce as the delegate 
of the Southern Church. The Chairman of the 
committee, after Mr. Davis had been defeated 
in his brotherly purpose, falling back upon safe 
ground, immediately 4 4 stood corrected" by the 
vote of the morning. That is, as an invitation to 
' 6 attend the sessions ' 5 is equivalent to an invita- 
tion to " occupy a seat within the bar," so the priv- 
ilege of attending the sessions was equivalent to an 
invitation to fill the pulpit of any Church that 
would not feel itself attainted by recognizing the 
ministerial character of the Southern delegate ! * 

* We regret that we have been unable to find a paper writ- 
ten by the venerable man whose name and character were 
made the foot-ball of this body of representative men in iSi c -, 
In that paper, written at our special request. Dr. Pierce entered 
into details which have never found their way into print. Al- 



I96 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Other than the question of property there were 
absolutely no "questions" or "difficulties" be- 
tween the two bodies. The disputes on the bor- 
der, between factions in the Churches, and the 
ignoble means resorted to in order to get or to 
keep possession of property, would have been 
countenanced by honest men on neither side of 
the division line. The trumpery charges brought 
up at this Conference, and bearing the signature 
of the Northern bishops, is a subject of painful 
humiliation and sorrow. But no man in his senses, 
uninfluenced by other and more plausible motives, 
could pretend that the intemperate zeal of half a 
dozen preachers in the " Northern Neck " of Vir- 
ginia, or a solitary champion of 6 6 Southern aggres- 
sion " in the city of Cincinnati could warrant the 
rejection of a fraternal messenger from the South- 
ern Church. We will see presently the shape that 
matters were assuming. 

But, inasmuch as the complaints of "infrac- 
tions" of the "Plan of Separation" were made 
very early in the process of the "Plan of Repudia- 
tion " in 1848, we notice the introduction and the 

though more than twenty years have elapsed since we saw that 
paper, the impression made by it can never be erased from our 
mind. The ingenious methods of torture to which he was sub- 
jected on that memorable occasion furnish cause for grateful 
contrast with the brotherly kindness and courtesy which have 
marked fraternal greetings and interchange of fraternal dele- 
gates in recent times. The effect is so delightful that it would 
be an unpardonable offense to change the attitudes of the two 
great bodies. " Distinct as the billows," let us be " one as the 
sea!" 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



I 9 7 



proceedings under a very peculiar call. We quote 
from page 24 of the journal: 

The Committee on the State of the Church respectfully beg 
leave to present a further report, in part, and to recommend to 
the General Conference the adoption of the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
be, and they are hereby respectfully, requested to furnish to 
this General Conference a statement, in writing, of the instances 
in which they consider that the plan, contingently provided 
by the last General Conference, has been violated by the au- 
thorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by sending 
ministers and organizing societies within the bounds of the 
territory of this Conference. 

Respectfuly submitted. George Peck, Chairman. 

Dr. Jesse T. Peck offered a substitute for this 
resolution, and it was adopted, as follows: 

"Resolved, That the bishops be requested to furnish the Com- 
mittee on the State of the Church with any facts which may 
be in their possession in relation to alleged infractions of the 
division line. 

The wolf has evidently determined to eat the 
lamb, but he has not fully framed the proposition 
that is to furnish an excuse for the performance. 
The lamb is muddying the water down be- 
low, and for that reason the wolf is resolved to 
take his life, or to vindicate the quarrel he had 
once with his grandfather. It is not very evident 
how it happened, but a poor excuse is better than 
none. The South is not to have her share of the 
property, and even the conservative bishops who 
recognize, and have conformed themselves to the 
" Plan of Separation," are pressed into the serv- 
ice, and made the instruments to justify the " Plan 
of Repudiation." 



ip8 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 

After the reader has examined the whole bill of 
charges made in the singular paper signed by the 
bishops, he will find that every complaint concerns 
territory lying within the bounds of the slave-hold- 
ing States, the solitary case of Cincinnati being 
the exception. Of the merits of the complaint 
from Cincinnati we have no knowledge and can 
pronounce no opinion. But it is certain that the 
bishops have failed to make out a case which war- 
rants Dr. George Peck's grandiloquent assertion 
that " Southern encroachments stopped at noth- 
ing! 93 The " encroachment " of the lamb gently 
drinking a hundred yards below the law-loving 
wolf became intolerable, and to right the wrongs 
of a dozen fragments of circuits in Virginia and 
Maryland, the whole " Plan of Separation" must 
be declared " null and void! " 

The case of Bishop Soule was disposed of in the 
same manner that characterized every subject 
touched by this General Conference when any 
mention was made of the Southern Church. Bish- 
op Soule was born in Maine, and therefore had no 
social or hereditary reasons for preferring the 
cause of the South. He believed that the New 
England crusade in 1844, against Bishop Andrew, 
involved the most profound questions of Church 
polity and Christian doctrine. To no man in the 
history of Methodism, Bishop McKendree not ex- 
cepted, is the constitutional character of American 
Methodism so greatly indebted as to Bishop Soule. 
He stood, in 1820, as the solitary barrier that re- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 1 99 



sisted the incoming waves of radical and revolution- 
ary measures, and he triumphed in the sober sec- 
ond thought of the Church. But his voice was 
lost in 1844. There remained for him only one 
course: to cast his lo* with the conservative South. 
Present at Louisville, and again at Petersburg, 
in 1846, he made known his preference, tendered 
his services, and was accepted by the General 
Conference as one of the Southern bishops. 

It would seem that there could be no cause of 
offense in this action, warranted as it was by the 
"Plan of Separation." But the Conference of 
1848 took a very different view of the matter. 
Bishop Soule was present at Pittsburg, but no no- 
tice w r as taken of him. He addressed a letter to 
the Conference, and the sole record is: "Also a 
paper from Bishop Soule, of the same Church." 

We copy Bishop Soule's letter: 

Pittsburg. May 10, 1848. 

To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, now in session. 

Revere?id a?id Dear Brethren: In conformity with the " Plan 
of Separation " adopted by the General Conference of 1844, 
providing for " a distinct ecclesiastical connection, should the 
Conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary to 
unite in such a connection," these Conferences, at their first 
sessions after the General Conference, had the subject under 
deliberate consideration. But that there might be no hasty ac- 
tion in a matter of such important concern, and that the views 
and counsels of all the Conferences might be obtained, after 
sufficient time to examine the whole ground, they appointed 
delegates to meet in convention in Louisville, Ky., on the 1st 
of May, 1845. These delegates convened at the time and place 
appointed; and after deliberate examination of the deeply in- 
teresting subject on which they were met, accompanied with 



200 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



much prayer, they came to the decision, with almost unparal- 
leled unanimity, that it was necessary for the Conferences in 
the slave-holding States, represented by them in Convention, 
to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, under the pro- 
visions of the General Conference. Having settled this impor- 
tant question, the Convention provided for the consummation 
of a separate organization by appointing a General Conference, 
to be held in Petersburg, Va., on the ist of May, 1846. The 
acts of the Convention were submitted to the Annual Confer- 
ences for their approval, and, being approved, delegates were 
elected to the General Conference. The delegates having con- 
vened, and the General Conference being organized, I regarded 
the provisions of the " Plan of Separation" for a distinct eccle- 
siastical connection consummated in the establishment of the 
" Methodist Episcopal Church, South." So far as I have had cog- 
nizance of the deliberations and decisions of the General Con- 
ference, the Convention, and the Annual Conferences, it affords 
me pleasure to say that, according to my best judgment, they 
have been conducted with the strictest regard to the provisions 
of the " Plan," and with much of the same spirit of peace, broth- 
erly kindness, and charity which marked its adoption in the 
General Conference of 1844 as a scene of the truly moral sub- 
lime. As soon as the General Conference was organized, I of- 
ficially notified the body that I adhered to the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, in conformity with the second resolution 
of the " Plan of Separation," which is in the words following: 
" 2. That ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and of- 
fice in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, 
remain in that Church, or, -without bla?ne, attach themselves to 
the Church, South." With this act, my official relation to this 
General Conference, and to the Methodist Episcopal Church 
under its jurisdiction, ceased. And being received as one of 
the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, my of- 
ficial relations and responsibilities were transferred to that body. 

From the foregoing facts it will readily be perceived that I 
hold myself amenable to the General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church for all my acts till the ist of May, 1846. 
The chief object of my attendance at the present session of 
your body is to ascertain whether there are any charges to be 
preferred against me, and if so, to answer to them as best I may. 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



20I 



I am aware that it has been the usage of the General Conference 
to appoint a committee on the episcopacy, whose duty it is to 
inquire into the administration of the government, and other 
matters appertaining to this department in the Church, and to 
report the result of their examination to the Conference. To 
this course, under ordinary circumstances, I certainly have no 
objection; but coming before you under circumstances of an ex- 
traordinary character, such as have never existed before, I re- 
spectfully request that any action of the Conference, so far, as 
my character is involved, growing out of publications in the 
official journal of the Church, may be had without reference to 
the committee. 

In the Western Christian Advocate of the 1 2th of June, 1846, 
the editor, Rev. Charles Elliott, has made a declaration to the 
Church, and to the American people, to the extent of the circu- 
lation of that paper, which I regard as highly injurious to me, 
so far as Dr. Elliott is regarded as a man of truth. His declara- 
tion is in the words following: " But Bishop Soule has with- 
drawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church under grave 
charges, or liable to them. Charges, we learn, were officially 
laid in against him previous to the Convention." On the ap- 
pearance of this announcement, I took the liberty to call on Dr. 
Elliott, in the presence of four ministers of age and experience, 
to obtain, if possible, an explanation of this extraordinary state- 
ment. In the course of this interview I proposed to Dr. Elliott 
the following question: " By whom were these charges laid in, 
or preferred, and who gave you the information?" To this 
question the doctor answered promptly, and in a manner suit- 
able to the character of his office as a minister and editor. His 
reply was, in substance, " That in a letter which he received 
from James B. Finley, he informed him that he had laid in, or 
preferred, charges against me, previous to the Louisville Con- 
vention, and that he had furnished me with a copy of these 
charges." I assured the doctor that I had never received any 
charges laid in against me by Brother Finley, or the slightest 
intimation of any intention on his part to charge me, till he 
gave me the information. I have requested the doctor to retract 
this statement, so injurious to my character, so far as he is accred- 
ited as a man of truth ; but this retraction not appearing, I have 
respectfully, but earnestly, requested him to publish, in the Ad- 



202 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



vocate, the letter of Brother Finley giving him the information. 
Failing in this, I have several times requested to be furnished 
with these " grave charges," that I might know what they 
were, and have some time to prepare to meet them ; but in this 
I have also failed. And although this statement of " grave 
charges officially laid in against me previous to the Conven- 
tion " has now been before the American people for nearly 
two years, in one of the official journals of the Church, and (for 
aught I know to the contrary) may have gone to Canada, and 
crossed the Atlantic, I remain as perfectly ignorant of what 
those charges are as any member of your body, or as any citi- 
zen of this city. 

In view of this plain statement of facts, which I think will 
not be denied, it must be perceived that I come before you un- 
der no ordinary embarrassments. It is scarcely possible that 
the announcement that " grave charges were officially laid in 
against me, under which I had withdrawn from the Church," 
coming from such a source, and sustained by such authority, 
should fail to produce an influence prejudicial to my charac- 
ter and my cause, if, by the presentation of the charges, I 
shall have an opportunity to make my defense. The shortness 
of time which I may have for preparation after I shall be put 
in possession of the charges may operate to my disadvantage. 
By waiving these considerations, however embarrassing, I avail 
myself of the opportunity now offered me, respectfully to re- 
quest that my alleged accuser will lay in his charges to this 
Conference, and thus afford me an opportunity of making my 
defense as best I may before a tribunal to which I hold myself 
amenable, as previously stated. As I cannot, consistently with 
my sense of propriety, make any further communication to this 
Conference on this subject, either verbal or written, till the 
charges shall be presented, unless, the facts before stated shall 
be denied, I respectfully request that this communication may 
not be made a matter of animadversion in the Conference, so 
as to produce a still stronger influence against me before the 
charges shall be prepared in proper form. I here dismiss this 
truly painful subject, which no motive could have induced me 
to lay before the Conference but justice to myself and to others 
whose characters may be as deeply involved as my own. And 
having made this communication as my last recourse to obtain 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



203 



the knowledge of the charges which your official journal 
declares were laid in against me more than two years ago, and 
under which I had withdrawn from the Church, if I should 
fail to obtain these charges here, I will indulge the confident 
hope that such declaration will not be repeated, and that a fa- 
vorable judgment will be passed upon me, at least at the tri- 
bunal of public opinion. 

In conclusion, permit me to express my deep and sincere re- 
gret that you have found it expedient, as the result of your delib- 
erations, to decline to recognize a fraternal relation, in the bonds 
of our common Methodism, to the Church, South. The una- 
nimity with which you have arrived at this conclusion, both 
in your large and intelligent committee, and in your Confer- 
ence action, may be regarded as evidence of the strong con- 
solidation of the great body of ministers and people which you 
represent, and for which you act. And I will indulge the hope 
that, at least so far as regards all the essential elements which 
constitute the " unity of the body of Christ, which is his 
Church," this consolidation will be fully realized. But suffer 
me to say that though my voice, soon to be hushed in the si- 
lence of the tomb, can in all probability be heard no more in 
your councils ; and those bonds which have bound me to you, 
as a branch of the great Wesleyan family of Methodists, for half 
a century, have been severed by your act; I still feel a deep so- 
licitude for your connectional unity, and for the success of the 
great work committed to your charge. But I cannot free my- 
self from the apprehension that your act may disturb the peace 
and harmony of your body, and be at least the accidental cause of 
unhappy differences among your body. Against such a result, 
though your action in connection with my relation to the Church, 
South, has neutralized any personal or official influence I might 
otherwise exert, I shall continue to interpose my prayers. 

In the last four years, though not as successful as in some 
previous years, the work of God has gradually advanced in 
the Annual Conferences of the Church, South, and in some 
parts of the work we have had great and blessed revivals. The 
increase of white members is 17,462; colored, 23,896. Total in- 
crease in four years, 41,358. 

Very respectfully and affectionately yours in Christian bonds, 

Joshua Soule, 



204 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



We have stated that there is no record that the 
foregoing communication was ever read to the 
Conference. The mention made is, " a paper 
from Bishop Soule, of the same Church/' but, on 
the same day, J. A. Collins offered the following 
resolution : 

Resolved, That the communication from Bishop Soule to this 
General Conference be referred to a select committee of five, 
with instructions to report that as Bishop Soule has adhered to 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and thereby withdrawn 
himself from the jurisdiction of this General Conference, it is 
improper for this body to take action upon the matters contained 
in this communication. 

Let the reader remember the exact point of Bish- 
op Soule' s request. Dr. Elliott, in the Western 
Christian Advocate, said: " But Bishop Soule has 
withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church 
under grave charges, or liable to them. Charges, 
we learn, were officially laid in against him pre- 
vious to the Convention." If Dr. Elliott's asser- 
tion were true, Bishop Soule had a right to de7nand 
an investigation of his case at the hands of this 
General Conference, for he was a bishop of the 
Northern Church when the alleged cause for his 
arraignment occurred. To leave the matter in an 
uncertain shape, with vague insinuations involving 
the moral character of the highest officer in the 
Church, was undoubtedly a grave error on the 
part of this General Conference. 

A. Griffith offered a substitute for the resolution 
of Mr. Collins, but it amounted to little more, in 
terms, and nothing more as a remedy, for the evil 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



205 



perpetrated by the slanderous statement. Mr. 
Griffith's substitute declared that they had juris- 
diction of nothing except "0 direct charge of im- 
morality " in the interval of the General Confer- 
ence; therefore, as Bishop Soule had withdrawn 
from their Church, they had no jurisdiction over 
him ! It was a remarkable position for a General 
Conference to assume, that while in the interval 
of the quadrennial sessions nothing but gross 
charges of immorality could be entertained, yet 
during the session a majority could depose a bish- 
op who had done no wrong ! 

They did not intend to permit an investigation 
of the case, and a vote of " non fossumus" was in 
order. What things soever they, under the lead- 
ership of Dr. Elliott, might have been disposed to 
consider " grave charges" can be conjectured 
only by the mind that can justify an act of sepa- 
ration in 1844 as necessary, and condemn the 
same act in 1848 as schism and secession. No 
man's character, not even his life, can be safe if 
it should be committed to the prejudices and pas- 
sions of such victims of an infirm reason and reck- 
less imagination. 

Here we have a venerable man, a bishop in the 
Church of Christ, standing at the door of the Gen- 
eral Conference, and requesting simple justice at 
their hands. The tongue of calumny and the pen 
of slander had given to the world a statement that 
grave charges had been preferred against this of- 
ficer of the Church. The accused asked for in- 



206 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



vestigation ; asked to be confronted with his accus- 
ers, that he might have an opportunity to vindicate 
his character. What answer do these Christian 
ministers make to this petition of their brother in 
the bonds of the gospel? 

Various propositions were made, amended, sub- 
stituted, or pared down, and at last the grave de- 
liberations resulted in the adoption of the following 
paper: 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that 
thej have no jurisdiction over the Rev. Bishop Soule, and can 
exercise no ecclesiastical authority over him. 

Thus, on page 47 of the printed Journal of 1848, 
stands a resolution beheaded of the preamble that 
proposed to give some sort of reason for the abso- 
lute denial of justice to the senior bishop of the 
Church ! How this laconic declaration accords 
with the action of the Conference a few days after- 
ward, we hope to show in the next chapter. 



CHAPTER X. 



General Conference of 1848 a Remarkable Body — Determined 
to Repudiate the Work of 1S44 — Only Doubtful of the Means 
to Secure the End — Position of the South Not Understood — 
A Hopeless Case — Southern Delegates Did Not Refer the 
Plan of Separation to the Annual Conferences — Only the 
Change in Restrictive Rule Thus Referred — Assertion With- 
out Proof — A Bold Statement — Two Statements by the Con- 
ference — Both Cannot Be True — Avoiding a Vote on the Ref- 
erence — The Question of Dividing the Book Concern the 
Only Question Referred to the Vote of the Annual Confer- 
ences — Vote on the Restrictive Rule Divided the Property — 
Refusal to Divide the Property Did Not Annul the Plan for 
Dividing the Church — An Affirmative Vote Gave the South 
Her Share — A Negative Vote Denied the South Her Share 
— This Was the Only Effect of the Annual Conference Vote 
— South Made to Hang Church Organization upon Dividing 
the Property — False Position Becoming a Calumny — South 
Compelled to Sue in Order to Retain Her Own Possessions 
— Obscurity in the Returns of the Actual Vote — No Means 
of Ascertaining the Results Except Five Lines of a Report 
— No Records — Statement Contradicted — -Plan of Separation 
Proves the Reference — Reasons for Repudiation — The Out- 
come Three Declarations — The Philosophy of Anarchy. 

We believe that the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, convened in 
Pittsburg in May, 1848, was the most remarkable 
assembly of Christian men that the annals of Meth- 
odism have placed on record. The most astonish- 
ing propositions were offered by grave men not 
heated by debate, for there was no party to oppose 
them, the entire Conference being engaged in the 

(207) 



208 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



diligent search after reasons to justify a course of 
action which they had already determined to take. 
The great legal and scientific abilities of Dr. Simp- 
son were brought into the service of the Confer- 
ence, and one of the most tangled threads of soph- 
istry and contradiction found the clue for its un- 
winding in one of his substitutes for the report of 
a committee. 

The " laboring oar " became a heavy one at the 
beginning of the session. When the General Con- 
ference of 1844 adjourned, not one syllable was 
uttered to the effect that the " Plan of Separation " 
was to be voted on and determined by a three- 
fourths vote of all the Annual Conferences. To 
suppose that the Southern delegates would have 
agreed to such a proposition would have been a 
reflection upon their intelligence. The significant 
vote in the case of Bishop Andrew was sufficient 
to admonish them that there was no possibility of 
bringing Northern men to a just and sensible view 
of the position occupied by the Church in the 
South. To this hour that position is as distant 
from the apprehension of Northern men as it was 
in 1844. Millions of volumes might be written in 
vain if directed to the purpose of enlightening the 
minds of our brethren in the North upon this sub- 
ject. If ever there was a case of " invincible ig- 
norance/' in the conservative sense of that term, 
as employed by modern Romanists, the present is 
an example of that deplorable condition. This 
was felt, acknowledged, and declared in the de- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



209 



bate of 1844. Can any sane man believe that, the 
vote which deposed Bishop Andrew being the 
gravamen of the Southern delegates, they could 
immediately consent to allow the men who inflicted 
the injury to determine whether the aggrieved party 
should seek redress? The proposition is absurd. 
And yet the General Conference of 1848 declared 
that the Southern delegates did that very thing. 
And what is more remarkable, they actually refer 
to the " Plan of Separation " to prove that it was 
a piece of child's play! 

The reader will be astonished to see this fact ar- 
rayed In plain view, the assertion and the proof: 



Report of Committee of Nine, 
Journal, 1844, page ijj. 

3. Resolved, by the delegates 
of all the Annual Conferences 
in General Conference Assem- 
bled, That we recommend to 
all the Annual Conferences, at 
their first approaching sessions, 
to authorize a change of the 
sixth restrictive article, so that 
the first clause shall read thus : 
" They shall not appropriate the 
produce of the Book Concern 
nor of the Chartered Fund to 
any other purpose other than 
for the benefit of the traveling, 
supernumerary, superannuated, 
and worn-out preachers, their 
wives, widows, and children, 
and to such other purposes as 
may be determined upon by the 
vote of two-thirds of the mem- 
bers of the General Confer- 
ence." 

14 



Report of Committee on the State 
of the Church, Journal, 1848, 
page 158. 

And further, in proof that the 
proposed alteration of the sixth 
restrictive article of the Dis- 
cipline was a fundamental con- 
dition of this " Plan " as a -whole, 
we refer to the third resolution 
of the report of the committee 
of nine, in which it is expressly 
asserted. 



2IO BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Now the reader has before his eyes the assertion 
and the proof. Every syllable of the third reso- 
lution of the committee of nine is copied above. 
Can human ingenuity point out the words of that 
resolution wherein it is " expressly asserted" that 
the adoption of the change of the restrictive rule 
was " a fundamental condition of this 'Plan 9 as a 
whole? 99 Not even by legitimate inference, much 
less by express statement, can such a conclusion 
be derived from that third resolution.- Yet the 
General Conference of 1848 voted that the ex- 
press statement is in the words above quoted ! At 
the very same time, this General Conference re- 
fused or avoided the vote on the same statement 
in the report of the same committee, in which it 
is stated that the " Plan of Separation " was " de- 
signed to b>e dependent upon the occurrence of a 
specified necessity, upon the concurrence of three- 
fourths of the members of the Annual Confer- 
ences 99 Dr. Simpson helped them out of the 
necessity for making a bold statement which ex- 
traordinary ingenuity only could authorize as a de- 
duction from the proceedings of 1844. The only 
matter contingent upon the three-fourths vote of 
the Annual Conferences was the division of the 
Book Concern. But the 66 Book Concern" was 
not the Church. Did ever a Southern man de- 
clare that the organization of Southern Methodism 
was contingent upon the receipt of seventy-five 
cents -per capita from the Book Funds in New 
York and Cincinnati? 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



211 



But the inconsistencies multiply as we proceed. 
Dr. Simpson's substitute for the resolution which 
declared that the whole plan was dependent upon 
the three-fourths vote is as follows : 

It the [ u Plan of Separation "] was further made dependent, 
first upon the consequence [sic] of three-fourths of the members 
of the several Annual Conferences in reference to a fart of its reg- 
ulations. (Journal, 1848, p. Si.) 

We suppose that there is an error of the printer 
in this quotation. " Made dependent upon the 
consequence" we suppose was intended to be 
' 6 made dependent upon the concurrence " of three- 
fourths, etc. 

Thus understood, then let us place two votes of 
this General Conference side by side. The first 
is the proposition voted by the adoption of Dr. 
Simpson's substitute, and the second is the state- 
ment of the committee, also adopted by the Con- 
ference : 



Report of the Committee, Adopt- 
ed June /, 184.8, 
x\nd further, in proof that the 
proposed alteration of the sixth 
restrictive article of the Disci- 
pline was a fundamental con- 
dition of the ' Plan ' as a zvhole, 
we refer to the third resolution 
of the report of the committee 
of nine, in 'which it is expressly 
asserted. (Journal, 1848, p. 1 58.) 

If we understand the thread of logic that con- 
nects these two declarations of the Conference, 
there is abundant occasion for the exercise of in- 



Dr. Simpsorfs Substitute, Adopt- 
ed May 26, 1848. 
It [the Plan of Separation] 
was further made dependent, 
first upon the concurrence of 
three-fourths of the members 
of the several Annual Confer- 
ences, in reference to apart of its 
regulations. (Journal, 1848, p. 

81). 



212 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN, 



genuity. What was the " part of its regulations " 
which required a three-fourths vote of the Annual 
Conferences in concurrence? It was that part 
which referred to the alteration of the sixth re- 
strictive article. This alteration, the Committee 
tells us, was fundamental to the whole * ' Plan of 
Separation/' and they affirm that the simple state- 
ment of the question for a change of the rule, is 
an express statement that the whole " Plan ,? is 
null and void if the Annual Conferences refuse to 
make the change ! 

Let us see what would have happened if the 
three-fourths vote had been given upon the third 
resolution. Within eighteen months from the ad- 
journment of the General Conference in 1844, 
upon the passage of the resolution, the property of 
the Book Concern would have been in process of 
distribution, and a portion would have been in the 
hands of the Southern Commissioners, waiting its 
disposal by the Southern General Conference ap- 
pointed to meet in Petersburg, Va., in May, 1846. 

Reversing the result, what would have been the 
effect of a failure to obtain a three-fourths vote in 
ratification of the third resolution? Nothing more, 
nothing less than a refusal of the Church to agree 
to the particular mode adopted for the distribution 
of the property. It might happen that the thing 
objected to was the ratio by which the property 
was ordered to be distributed. It might happen 
that the Church wanted another scheme of indi- 
rection similar to that employed in the Canada 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



2I 3 



case. We are not shut up to the alternative that 
the defeat of the third resolution destroyed the 
66 Plan." The defeat of an identical proposition 
in 1836 did not annul the act of division by which 
Canada became a separate Church in 1828. 

But our brethren " over the line " have endeav- 
ored to force us into the position, in which we are 
made to declare that unless we get our share of 
the Book Concern we wanted no Church at all ! 
Either we must get our sixty or seventy cents per 
capita, or we submit to the abolitionist crusaders 
for all time to come ! And the clear-headed Rob- 
ert Paine is made responsible for such a " settle- 
ment " as that ! 

So far from meriting such a stigma, there were 
multitudes of Southern Methodists that would have 
given a receipt in full for all the property claims 
we had upon the Book Concern rather than see our 
own " General Rules " set at defiance by " brother 
going to law r with brother ! " It was a cruel alter- 
native that compelled that disagreeable necessity 
in order to preserve under the civil laws the prop- 
erty which our labor had earned in the days of 
our severest trials. Declared secessionists by the 
General Conference of 1848, we were compelled 
to go into the courts to prove our title to the prop- 
erty we had purchased with our own money. 

We return to the question of the vote on the 
change of the sixth restrictive rule. We find a 
deep shadow resting upon the " returns" from 
that famous election. How did New York Con- 



214 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ference vote? What was the number of yeas, and 
how many nays were there? The Southern Con- 
ferences we know something about. The vote is 
tabulated, and we have no difficulty in finding out 
the state of the case. But the profoundest dark- 
ness rests upon the other side of the line. We 
have examined every document that we supposed 
likely to contain this vote of the Northern Confer- 
ences. The only reference that we find in the 
Journal of 1848 is the following, on page 56: 

The Committee on the State of the Church presented a re- 
port on the state of the vote to alter the sixth restrictive rule, to 
the effect that the r umber of votes required by the Discipline 
to change said rule had not been given. 

Moved to receive report, and order it to be entered upon the 
journal of reports. 

What book was designated the "journal of re- 
ports,*' we are not able to say. But the editor of 
the published journal has not given to the public 
the report of this committee, nor can we find it in 
any of the numerous documents that were entered 
in the Church suit. The attorney of the Northern 
Church simply quotes the above record, but Mr. 
Lord, in his opening speech in behalf of the South, 
makes a statement that has not received due atten- 
tion. As a statement of fact, it is a complete de- 
nial of the record of the General Conference of 
1848. It is part of the bill of the complainants, 
the commissioners appointed by the Southern 
Church to receive the property belonging to the 
South. We copy a part of a paragraph found on 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 215 



page 11 of "The Methodist Church Property 
Case:" 

But the complainants allege that, if the change in the sixth 
restrictive article is necessary in order that the Church, South, 
should obtain an equitable division of the Church property, a 
majority of three-fourths of all the members of the several An- 
nual Conferences which voted directly on the question, in view 
of a division of the property, has been obtained. 

Here we have a positive declaration that there 
was a three-fourths majority obtained, but where 
shall we find the details upon which this assertion 
was made? So far as the Southern Conferences 
are concerned, we know that the vote was almost 
absolutely unanimous, and if the Conferences 
North and South were counted, then of the whole 
number the required three-fourths may have been 
obtained. But how shall we account for the ab- 
sence of that important report of 1848? Why is it 
that we have no means of examining the action of 
particular Conferences, and are unable to tell what 
the vote actually was ? We would not insinuate that 
there was any unfair dealing in this matter, but it 
is certainly a very remarkable omission, from 
whatever cause it occurred. 

As to the main question, whether the entire 
"Plan of Separation" was submitted to the vote 
of the Annual Conferences, or only that part of 
the "Plan" which related to a division of the 
property in the Book Concern, the evidence of the 
" Plan " itself is as clear as it is possible for words 
to make it. In proof of this statement the reader 
has only to read the concluding paragraph of the 



2l6 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



report of the committee of nine. We copy from 
the journal of 1844, P a g e I 37 : 

12. That the bishops be respectfully requested to lay that 
fart of this report requiring' the action of the Annual Conferences 
before them as soon as possible, beginning with the New York 
Conference. 

Is it possible for language to make the fact 
plainer? The only resolution that was referred to 
the Annual Conferences was the third, in which 
the alteration of the sixth restrictive rule is recom- 
mended. 

But, given the fact that the "Plan of Separa- 
tion " must be repudiated, the means for attaining 
that end were not so easy to find. It would 
scarcely be allowable to make the admission that 
the astute Northerners had set a trap for the 
Southern gulls in 1844. To affirm that the South- 
ern delegates were betrayed into a bargain that 
placed all the power on the side of those that had 
compelled the South to protest would be equally 
fatal to Christian manhood and common honesty, 
virtues denied to neither party. A constitutional 
question was at stake, and great principles of eccle- 
siastical law were brought into the arena of debate. 

Scarcely anywhere upon the borders were cases 
wanting. Individuals, families, parts of Churches, 
fragments of Conferences finding their sympa- 
thizers receding from "slave" soil, would offer 
excellent occasions to test great principles. Peti- 
tions were easily gotten up. Scores, hundreds 
probably could have been obtained, for the family 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



217 



of the dissatisfied is very large, and sometimes 
very active, and, it may be added, that the mem- 
bers thereof are sometimes very useful. That 
there were such persons in the border Confer- 
ences cannot be doubted. Whether they would 
form a large or a small minority in the border 
Churches would depend largely upon the conduct 
of the parties concerned in the division of the 
Church in these communities. If party spirit 
should be aroused, and bitterness of feeling excit- 
ed, the number of displeased persons would be in- 
creased accordingly. But when it was known 
that this complaint would be kindly received and 
wisely used at the General Conference, we cannot 
be surprised at the appearance of many petitions 
at Pittsburg. 

The process adopted for the perfection of the 
" Plan of Repudiation" in 1848 afforded oppor- 
tunity for much debate. Many methods of doing 
the thing were proposed, but to the thing itself the 
opposition was merely nomial. Under the form 
of "declarations" we have four propositions, 
three of which were adopted, and the fourth dis- 
placed by Dr. Simpson's substitute. We give 
them in the order recorded in the Journal: 

1. There exists no power in the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, either di- 
rectly or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions a divis- 
ion of said Church, (Page 73.) 

This 66 declaration" was adopted by 143 yeas to 3 
nays. 



218 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



2d declaration. It is the 'right of any member of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church unless guilty 
of the violation of its rules, and there exists no power in the 
ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any 
member of said right. 

The vote on this proposition was: Yeas, 147; 
nay, 1. 

3d declaration. This right being inviolably secured by the 
fifth restrictive article of the Discipline, which guarantees to 
members, ministers, and preachers the right of trial and appeal, 
any acts of the Church otherwise separating them from said 
Church contravene the constitutional rights and privileges of 
the membership and ministry. 

The vote on the adoption of this proposition was ; 
Yeas, 142 ; nays, 6. 

The members of this Conference were in search 
of a principle. They wanted a principle broad 
enough to base an act of repudiation, whereby the 
action of 1844 could be annulled. And they were 
eminently successful in this search. They have 
given us in the three resolutions above quoted 
three principles broad enough to destroy all gov- 
ernment, civil and ecclesiastical. The Conference 
discovered the philosophy of anarchy, and eager- 
ly indorsed the discovery by an overwhelming 
vote of approval. To all time the record must 
stand as the mature judgment of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church (North). 

1. The first proposition is negative. It tells us 
that a certain power does not exist in the General 
Conference. That body, declared omnipotent in 
1844, becomes absolutely impotent in 1848, and 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



219 



can neither divide one Church into two branches, 
nor unite two Churches in one jurisdiction. 

2. The second resolution is a high-sounding col- 
location of words, framed for the purpose of fitting 
an emergency, and so delightfully ambiguous is 
the declaration itself that any number of decis- 
ions might be authorized by its language. Un- 
doubtedly it is the right of any man who prefers 
it to be a member of the Church (North), and no 
person on earth has the power to deprive him of 
that right except the legal authorities, and they 
only for a violation of rules. Suppose a member 
chooses to live in London and hold his membership 
in New York. How shall the absentee be dealt 
with? Shall it be called and voted a crime to live 
in London? Special enactment may be made to fit 
such cases ; but these are endless sources of trouble, 
litigation, and confusion in this Pandora's box of 
invited evils. Forty years before that Conference a 
Methodist preacher would have been astonished at 
the statement that he had no power to 66 drop " a 
member or a probationer whenever he considered 
it best to do so. Times have changed. Church 
membership is a more sacred thing, and rightly so. 
But the doctrine of indelible membership, broadly 
asserted in this declaration, is totally unknown 
outside of national Churches. 

3. The third resolution, taken in itself, is an 
elaborate statement of a self-evident truth, but the 
framers of the resolution intended to make it use- 
ful in the " Plan of Repudiation/' In the first 



220 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



place, the " Plan of Separation" did not deprive 
any member of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of any right whatever. The doctrine that a minor- 
ity has the right to dominate a majority, and there- 
by one man is allowed to shape the course of a 
Church of five hundred members, is too absurd for 
argument. Yet this is precisely the doctrine of 
these " declarations/' 

Let us take a case. In the city of St. Louis a 
Church has five hundred members. Four hun- 
dred and ninetv-nine vote to adhere South. One 
man chooses to adhere North. That one man, 
under these absurd " declarations," can prevent 
the four hundred and ninety-nine from carrying 
out their purpose ! The sickly shadow of the law 
of fiduciary agencies may be seen faintly defined 
in this philosophy of anarchy. But no Church 
in America was ever governed or can be governed 
by such principles. They are subversive of the 
fundamental principles of Church organization. 

But the adoption of these declarations has for- 
ever forestalled the Methodist Church (North) 
from forming an organic union with any other 
Church in Christendom. If it be good law — that 
is, that there is (< no power in the ministry, either 
individually or collectively, to deprive " a member 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church of his mem- 
bership in that body — it is equally good law that no 
power exists in the aforesaid ministry to deprive a 
member of his membership in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South. If a million of communi- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



221 



cants in the Southern Church should vote for or- 
ganic union, one man can interfere and nullify the 
proceedings by refusing his concurrence. Ac- 
cording to these " declarations " there is no consti- 
tutional power on earth that can unite two Churches 
in one jurisdiction, if any member of the Church 
that is to change its name objects to the union. As 
there cannot be two Churches, South, the Pitts- 
burg philosophy of anarchy forever prohibits 
organic union of Episcopal Methodism in the 
United States. The same consequence follows in 
all respects, when any other Church may be pro- 
posed for union. Many scores of Methodist Prot- 
estants have united with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. According to these " declara- 
tions," it would have been utterly useless for any 
negotiation between the authorities on either side. 
One member could render all attempts at union 
abortive ! 

But the reader will probably be rewarded for 
the time and labor which the study of these " dec- 
larations " may cost him, if he takes into view 
the fact that the logical outcome of the Pittsburg 
declaration is a State Church. The attempt to 
identify membership and jurisdiction, the effort to 
find an analogy between Church membership and 
birth citizenship; and, finally? the adoption of civil 
rules and political procedures in the enforcement 
of ecclesiastical law r , are grave and significant 
facts. The doctrine that wherever the flag waves 
there Church jurisdiction exists is a doctrine as 



222 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



full of menace to the State as the claim of Rome 
that every baptized person is a vassal of the Bishop 
of Rome. Here we have tyranny in embryo and 
anarchy following resistance. 

4th declaration. The report of the select committee of nine 
upon the declaration of the delegates in the slaveholding States, 
commonly called the " Plan of Separation," adopted by the 
last General Conference, of which the memorialists complain, 
and the operation of which separated them from connection 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church, having been intended to 
secure peace and harmony in our Southern boundary, and hav- 
ing been designed to be dependent upon the occurrence of a 
specified necessity, upon the concurrence of three-fourths of 
the members of the Annual Conferences, and upon the observ- 
ance of a specified boundary by the distinct ecclesiastical con- 
nection separating from us, should such connection be formed, 
and the said necessity, in the opinion of this Conference, not 
having arisen, the Annual Conferences having refused the 
necessary concurrence, and said provisions respecting a bound- 
ary having been infracted by the highest authorities of said 
connection, therefore, in view of these facts, as well as for the 
reasons before specified, there exists no obligation on the part 
of this Conference to observe the provisions of said "Plan" 
respecting a boundary, and said " Plan " is hereby declared null 
and void. 

This extraordinary declaration was too much for 
the Conference. It was, in many respects, the 
most remarkable statement that claimed the atten- 
tion of this remarkable Conference. It declared 
that a 66 Plan of Separation" was adopted. This 
" Plan " separated certain persons from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, and they complained of 
it. It affirms that the " Plan " was intended " to 
secure peace and harmony in our Southern bound- 
ary," a marvelous statement which we will notice 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 223 



in another place. But the next series of proposi- 
tions declared that the "Plan" was dependent 
upon: 1. A specified necessity. 2. The concur- 
rence of three-fourths of the members of the An- 
nual Conferences. 3. Upon the observance of a 
specified boundary. It declared: 1. The neces- 
sity has not arisen, 2. The boundary has not 
been observed. 3. The three-fourths vote has not 
been obtained. Therefore, the " Plan of Separa- 
tion " is null and void ! 

This bundle of crude assertions without proof, 
and reasons that destroyed one another, was laid 
aside for a better collocation of absurdities pro- 
duced by Dr. Simpson in the form of a substitute. 



CHAPTER XI. 



Dr. Simpson's Substitute — First Section Contradicts the " Plan 
of Separation" — Adopted — Deposition- of Bishop Andrew 
Dissolved the Methodist Union — Absurdity of a Peace Of- 
fering—The South Only Needed One— The Border Did Not 
— Wisdom of This Generation — How to Hold the Border — 
Further Dependence — Second Section Adopted — Third Res- 
olution Did Not Involve the Adoption of the Plan — Charge 
of Imbecility Against the Southern Delegates — Third Sec- 
tion Adopted — Was It an Intended Trap? — Fourth Section — 
Waiting for Ruin First, to Be Repaired Afterward — Action 
of Delegates after the Conference Adjourned — Objection to 
It a Pretext Only — Surprised Fanatics — Remembrances of 
1844 — Section Five Adopted — Question of Fact Which Has 
Only Assertion for Proof — Section Six Adopted — The Wolf 
Finds an Excuse for Eating the Lamb — Section Seven 
Adopted — Absolution Decree — A High Court for Annulling 
Compacts — Section Eight — Closing the Book of Pretexts — 
Kentucky Court of Appeals Upsets Dr. Simpson's Logic — 
Melancholy Attitude of a General Conference — Final Settle- 
ment of the Property Question — Decree of the United States 
Circuit Court for Southern District of New York — Final 
Award of the Supreme Court of the United States — The 
South Receives Her Portion — Courage of Dr. Crooks. 

r. simpson proposed a substitute for the fourth 



I J declaration, and it was adopted by sections. 
We copy from the Journal, beginning at page 80: 

First Section. The report of the select committee of nine 
on the declaration of the delegates in the slaveholding States, 
adopted by the General Conference of 1844, of which the me- 
morialists complain, and the operation of which deprives them 
of their privileges as members of the M. E. Church, was intend- 
ed to meet a necessity which it was alleged might arise, and was 
given as a peace offering to secure harmony on our Southern border. 




(224) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



225 



This section was adopted by yeas 133; nays, 5. 

A close analysis of this paragraph will show that 
the author of this substitute began the paper with 
a bold, unblushing misrepresentation both of the 
attitude of the Southern delegates and the explicit 
declaration of the ''Plan of Separation." The 
substitute says that the "Plan" was adopted to 
meet a necessity that might arise. What can be 
more explicit than the language of the first para- 
graph in the "Plan?" We copy from the Jour- 
nal of 1844, page 135: 

Whereas a declaration has been presented to this General 
Conference, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the 
body, from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slaveholding 
States, representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the ob- 
jects and purposes of the Christian ministry and Church organiza- 
tion cannot be successfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction 
of this General Conference as now constituted, 

Dr. Simpson says that the plan was adopted "to 
meet a necessity which it was alleged might arise," 
but the " Plan " itself says that it was adopted be- 
cause the necessity had already arisen! In utter 
defiance of the facts, this substitute actually de- 
clares that the delegates in the slaveholding States 
had abandoned their position in regard to Bishop 
Andrew, and had placed the cause for the separa- 
tion in something to be said or done at some future 
time ! This assertion is utterly at variance with 
the record, with the declarations on the Confer- 
ence floor, and with the absolute statement of the 
"Plan" itself. 

The vote that deposed Bishof Andrew dissolved 
15 



226 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the union of Episcopal Methodism in the United 
States. The thing was an accomplished fact. 
Not a man among the fifty-one delegates would 
have been tolerated by his Southern constituents 
if he had failed to vindicate his people by devising 
some method of protecting the rights of the South. 
The General Conference declared its hostility to 
the civil law, to the social order, as well as to the 
peace and well-being of the Southern States. Tame 
submission to that action of 1844 would have de- 
stroyed, root and branch, every Methodist organ- 
ization in the slaveholding States. The intelligent 
people of the South, and the well-informed classes 
in every other portion of the country foresaw the 
result. It had come to pass that loyalty to the 
General Conference was treason to the South ; and 
when Bishop Andrew's deposition was completed, 
the broad line of separation was drawn with un- 
mistakable distinctness. 

Dr. Simpson's substitute says that this " Plan of 
Separation " "was given as a peace offering to se- 
cure harmony on our southern border " We con- 
fess our inability to understand what was meant by 
this " peace offering." Nor do we know what is 
meant by 6 6 our southern border." It was not the 
"border" between the slaveholding and the 
Northern States that was involved in the struggle 
of 1844. There was, it is true, more or less of 
agitation among the people on otcr northern bor- 
der, where slave labor was becoming less profitable 
and less secure. Philanthropic people could sell 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 227 



their slaves to the Southern masters and then turn 
abolitionists in Maryland, Delaware, and the north- 
ern portions of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri 
just as easily as New England and New Jersey 
humanitarians had set them the example. Politi- 
cians catered for the prospect of majorities on both 
sides of the line, and they desired no " peace of- 
fering." In what possible sense could the " Plan 
of Separation" be a " peace offering" for the 
border Conferences? It was the South that was 
aggrieved; it was the South whose very existence 
was threatened by the crusade begun in 1844, and 
terminated in 1865. 

Let us strive to extract a meaning out of these 
strange w r ords. Who needed a " peace offering?" 
Certainly the people whose existence was placed 
in peril by the deposition of Bishop Andrew. Why 
then was this offering given to the people on the 
Southern border? For instance, the Baltimore 
Conference wanted no peace offering, for that 
Conference had voted for Bishop x\ndrew's depo- 
sition. How then could the " Plan of Separation," 
which set apart the Southern Conferences in an 
independent Church, act as a peace offering to 
Baltimore? 

Church politicians knew very well how to keep 
the "border" in the harness of the Church. 
City people know very little about matters of Con- 
nectional interest, and most of these "border" 
brethren were city people. Let the comfortable 
city Methodist see his favorite pastor in the pulpit, 



228 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



and all the rest of Methodism is welcome to go 
where and do as they may like. He reads no 
Church paper, although he may pay for one. If 
he can keep his thoughts out of his business long 
enough to listen to two sermons of thirty minutes 
each, his weekly modicum of duty has been per- 
formed, greatly to his own satisfaction. Beyond 
this he knows little and cares less for the Church 
as a whole. He is perfectly willing to let others 
do as he does, and he knows only what concerns 
himself. Let any man start out upon an adventure 
in the matter of testing the Connectional knowl- 
edge of city Methodism in Baltimore, Philadelphia, 
New York, Richmond, or Nashville, and he will 
verify this statement. 

The bishops of the Northern Church are wise, 
and in the main conservative men. ' They know 
how to supply " our border " with the men whose 
education, tastes, opinions, and experience qualify 
them for quiet, conservative, and safe pastoral 
management in quasi Southern congregations. 
This is the most effective ' 6 peace offering" that 
has ever been given to any people, and we admire 
the wisdom that has perfected such a " Plan." 

But hozv could the " Plan of Separation " act as 
a " peace offering ' to anybody? The South, or- 
ganized in an independent Church, wanted nothing 
more but fraternal recognition and the sacred em- 
ulation which inspires men to noble and gracious 
deeds. The northern border did not need and 
the southern border could not use such a " peace 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



22 9 



offering" unless an independent Church was or- 
ganized, and then the best "offering" of the 
North would have been strict attention to their 
own affairs, leaving the South to do the same thing. 
We will not say that the language of this substitute 
was not intended to convey some meaning. In 
point of fact, we believe that it was intended to 
mean anything that the exigencies of the case might 
require. 

We proceed to the next item. 

Section 2. It was further made dependent, first upon the 
consequence [concurrence] of three-fourths of the members of 
the several Annual Conferences, in reference to a part of its reg- 
ulations. 

This section was adopted by yeas 124; nays, 16. 

We have rarely seen such a wonderful specimen 
of reasoning as that which this section contains. 
The entire " Plan of Separation " was made " de- 
pendent " upon a vote upon " a part of its regula- 
tions ! " The absurdity of this statement must ap- 
pear to every man of average intelligence. We 
have already alluded to the tortuous course that 
has been pursued by the defenders of this Pitts- 
burg Conference. First, it is asserted that the 
whole " Plan " was submitted to a vote of the An- 
nual Conferences. In reply to this, it is stated 
that the " Plan" itself submits only the third res- 
olution to a vote of the Annual Conferences, and, 
as a matter of fact, no vote was taken upon any but 
the third resolution of the "Plan" Seeing the ob- 
stacles presented by the plain text of the paper, and 



230 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the unanswerable fact concerning the submission 
of the third resolution only, the ground of defense 
is shifted. 64 True," they say, " the vote was taken 
only on the third resolution, but upon that resolu- 
tion depends the 'Plan ' as a whole" But we ask: 
Where is any such declaration to be found ? Cer- 
tainly not in the "Plan" itself, for there is not 
one syllable there that could justify such a con- 
struction. We know that the Committee on the 
State of the Church in 1848 said so, and boldly 
cited the third resolution as proof, but the reader 
has already seen that there is not one word in that 
resolution that can be distorted into such a mean- 
ing, a construction utterly foreign to the intent 
and purpose of those who matured the paper and 
presented it to the Conference. 

If we could be induced to believe that the 
Southern men of 1844 intended to submit the 
question of separation to the vote of the Annual 
Conferences, we must give them the credit for 
less intelligence than even their enemies give them 
in this work. If they intended to submit the 
whole "Plan," why did they refuse to say so? 
If they intended to make the success or failure of 
the 66 Plan " for a new Church organization in the 
South to depend upon the adoption of the third 
resolution changing the restrictive rules, why did 
they fail to say so ? Surely explicit language was 
not difficult to find, and there were many members 
of that body who were fully competent to produce 
a paper that could leave no doubt as to its mean- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



231 



ing. To say that they used ambiguous language 
may serve as a precedent for the Conference of 
1848, but it could not soften the condemnation of 
the world. We are confident that no class of men, 
of equal intelligence, ever adopted a paper, or pur- 
sued a course of such indefensible and unmeasured 
folly as that attributed to the Southern delegates 
of 1844 by the statement in this section. 

The next paragraph is a rare specimen of logic: 

Section 3. And secondly upon the observance of certain pro- 
visions respecting a boundary by the distinct ecclesiastical Con- 
nection separating from us, should such Connection be formed. 

The vote upon this section was: Yeas, 127; 
nays, 10. 

We have called it a " rare specimen of logic." 
But what shall we call the " Plan of Separation," 
if the interpretation of that paper, given by this 
General Conference of 1848, can be the true one? 
And what shall we say of the clear-headed North- 
ern men who stood by and allowed their Southern 
brethren, as benighted in intellect as they were in 
morals, to walk into a trap whereby they would be 
exposed to the derision of mankind ? 

Here we have another contingency, besides the 
vote of a hostile section, upon which a separate 
Church must depend for its existence. If the 
Southern men do not obey their own propositions 
for a boundary line, then there never was a bound- 
ary, and they never had a Church ! The wolf is 
coming forward with his grievances ; for the water 
is muddy somewhere, above or below, and the 



232 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



offender is, or might have been, or intended to be, 
or, as a matter of fact could have been, and there- 
fore was in the wrong, because the wolf has a very 
decided taste for tender flesh ! 

But the rarest specimen of wit is yet to follow: 

Section 4. Without waiting, as this Conference believes, for 
the occurrence of the anticipated necessity, for which the " Plan " 
was framed, action w r as taken in the premises by the Southern 
delegates. 

The vote upon this statement was: Yeas, 130, 
nays, 6. 

44 Without waiting" for what? "The antici- 
pated necessity" for what? An independent 
Church organization. Was this an anticipated nec- 
essity, when the "Plan of Separation" distinctly 
declares, as already quoted, "for various reasons 
enumerated^ the objects and purposes of the Chris- 
tian ministry and Church organization cannot be 
successfully accomplished by them under the juris- 
diction of this General Conference as now 
constituted?" The necessity existed the very 
moment that Bishop Andrew was deposed because 
he would not, and could not, nullify the laws of 
the State in which he lived. Mr. Lord, attorney 
for the South, correctly states the point in the 
Church suit: "They say, that this grant of the 
power of separation, as actually assented to, was 
contingent upon the experiment being made in the 
Southern Churches of whether they could be 
ruined first, and repaired afterward." 

We have no doubt that many persons were sur- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



233 



prised when the Southern delegates held a con- 
sultation at the close of the General Conference, 
and gave their views to their brethren in the 
South. This surprise was occasioned, in many 
cases, by the inveterate impression on the minds 
of Northern people that the utterances of the 
Southern delegates amounted to little more than 
the gasconade of men who loved to hear them- 
selves talk. If Dr. Crooks has taken the pains to 
look over the pages of the " debates of 1844," we 
have no doubt that he holds even to this day the 
opinion shared by thousands in the North during 
the session of the Conference. But when these 
grave Southern men met together for calm delib- 
eration, in a foreign society and surrounded by 
those who could not appreciate their motives, the 
intensity of their convictions and the magnitude 
of the impending movement suddenly aroused a 
painful and alarmed curiosity. After all, were 
these men in earnest? Have they spoken the truth 
in regard to the profound importance attached to 
the deposition of Bishop Andrew? 

As in the twinkling of an eye, this consultation 
of the Southern delegates awakened the Northern 
men to consciousness not only that the Church 
was divided, but that the division had been caused 
by a decision that was forced upon the Church 
by the fanaticism of New England. We are free 
to say that the consultation of the Southern dele- 
gates in New York had no further influence upon 
the result than any other meeting of Southern 



234 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



ministers would have produced at that time. Not the 
least of many blunders of Northern men, in their 
judgment of the South, is the supposition that the 
Southern people are easily led by a few prominent 
men into any course of policy that these " leaders " 
may choose. We dare to make the assertion that 
there are more independent thinkers in the South, 
in proportion to population, than there are in any 
other section of the country, New England by , 
no means excepted. Be that as it may, a circular 
letter from the venerable Lovick Pierce, or Dr. 
Winans, or Dr. McFerrin, or any one of a hun- 
dred names that might be mentioned, would have 
exercised precisely the same influence that was 
produced by the meeting of the Southern delegates 
in New York. 

The father of the writer of these lines was the 
editor of a secular paper at the time, and no im- 
pressions of childhood are more vivid than 
those which record the intensity of interest felt in 
a Southern city during that famous Conference. 
We remember, too, the feeling of relief that was 
everywhere expressed when the "Plan of Sep- 
aration" was adopted and the way was opened 
for the preservation of Methodism in the South. 
Even those who had no feeling of sympathy with 
our Church were nevertheless rejoiced because a 
fruitful source of unprofitable debate had been re- 
moved from the councils of the Church. , No 
event that has occurred in the history of Method- 
ism has reflected so much honor upon the integrity, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 235 



charity, and Christian principles of the ministry as 
the adoption of the " Plan of Separation " in 1844. 
We regret to be compelled to add that no event 
in the history of our Church has shocked the sen- 
sibilities of the Christian Church in equal measure 
with the "Plan of Repudiation" adopted in 1848. 

The way having been prepared for an appro- 
priate conclusion, we find in the Journal the next 
step in the " Plan of Repudiation: " 

Section 4. The Annual Conferences, by their votes officially 
received, have refused to concur with that part of the Plan 
which was submitted to them. 

Upon this section the vote was : Yeas, 122 ; nays, 
15. 

We are at a loss to know the meaning of a neg- 
ative vote on a question of fact, unless it means a 
denial of the fact. What did these fifteen men 
mean by voting no upon this proposition? Did 
they mean that the fact was uncertain, so long as 
the votes of the slaveholding Conferences were 
unknown? Did they intend to challenge the fact 
in reference to their own Church? We have no 
means of answering these questions, and conject- 
ure must supply the place of certainty. These 
demurring brethren had, doubtless, the details of 
the election ; we have only the report of a " return- 
ing board," and the possibilities in the case are 
' ' legion." It does not matter, however, for we 
have another spinning of the thread that was suffi- 
ciently fine in a former section : 

Section 6. And the provisions respecting a boundary have 



236 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



been violated by the highest authorities of said Connection, 
which separated from us, and thereby the peace and harmony 
of the societies in our Southern border have been destroyed. 

The vote upon this statement was : Yeas, 135; 
nays, 4. 

The wolf has made out his case. " The provis- 
ions respecting a boundary have been violated by 
the highest authorities of said Connection, which 
separated from us, and thereby the peace and har- 
mony of our southern border have been de- 
stroyed! " Therefore, what? We wall proceed to 
eat the lamb, just as soon as he is thoroughly 
cooked. 

We have no disposition to enter into the petty 
details that a desperate cause was compelled to use 
as a reason for repudiating a solemn obligation and 
a sacred compact. The combined genius of a 
great Church was exercised for weeks upon the 
problem: How shall we escape from the conse- 
quences of our own acts? The outcome was this 
medley of assertion distorted into statements of 
facts, and straggling arguments boasting with all 
the energy of a thousand men in buckram. 

Nearing the end, we have 

Section 7. Therefore, in view of these facts, as well as for 
the principles contained in the preceding declarations, there ex- 
ists no obligation on the part of this Conference to observe the 
provisions of said "Plan." 

This determination was adopted by yeas 127; 
nays, 13. 

A wonderful train of argument, truly! The 
General Conference had no power to divide 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 237 



the Church, but they did it. Having divided it, 
the South promised to observe certain lines of ter- 
ritory, every one of which was in a slaveholding 
State, except it may be, a little chapel in Cincin- 
nati. 

The outrageous Southern men dared to serve their 
own people, living in slaveholding States, and be- 
cause they did so were branded as intruders, and 
the whole "Plan of Separation " was repudiated be- 
cause Southern people preferred to have Southern 
ministers as their pastors ! 

One more resolve closes the wonderful record: 

Section 8. And is hereby declared null and void. 

This was adopted by yeas 133; nays, 9. 

But the courts of the United States overruled all 
of this fine logic of Dr. Simpson. The Court of 
Appeals of Kentucky declared the " Plan of Sep- 
aration" legally binding, and announced to the 
world that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
was not a schism, not a secession, but a duly or- 
ganized Church, constituted by the properly au- 
thorized agents, and with the consent of all parties 
who had any right to a voice in the matter. 

The decision of this court, if it had been formed 
as a special criticism and answer to the logic of 
Dr. Simpson, could not have been more thorough- 
ly destructive of his argument and of the work of 
the General Conference of 1848. That our read- 
ers 'may see the tenor of the argument by which 
the Kentucky Court of Appeals decided the own- 
ership of property under the "Plan of Separa- 



238 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



tion," we quote from the decision in the Maysville 
Church Case, on page 207 of " The Methodist 
Church Property Case:" 

The resolutions constituting the " Plan of Separation," do not 
expel any individual from the society of which he was a mem- 
ber, nor deprive him of any privilege of property or worship 
pertaining to that society. But as they propose and provide 
for a complete separation, according to the organic or territorial 
divisions of the Church, they necessarily involve a partition of 
the governing power between two jurisdictions, each possessing 
within its territorial limits the same authority and power as 
had previously belonged to the whole Church. 

To say that the Church could not be legally or rightfully di- 
vided, according to its organic or territorial parts, without the 
unanimous consent of all the members of the entire Church, or 
even of all the members of the part proposed to be separated, 
would be to deny the power of division by any mode of action, 
since it would subject it to an impossible condition. 

And although one or more Annual Conferences might be 
incompetent, by their separate action, to bind to an independ- 
ent organization the local societies connected with them, we 
are satisfied that the joint and cooperative action of the Gener- 
al Conference and the several Annual Conferences concerned 
was fully competent to determine the question and fix the limit 
of separation, and to establish over the several societies within 
those limits the jurisdiction of the new organization. 

In determining upon the legality of the actual state of things 
consequent upon a great movement of this character, every 
part of the proceedings should be liberally construed to effectu- 
ate the apparent and reasonable intention of the parties, and 
there is no room for technicality. Then it is apparent upon 
the face of the resolutions that there is but one condition upon 
which the separation and the sanction of the General Confer- 
ence are to depend, which is that the Annual Conferences in 
the slaveholding States should find it necessary to erect an independ- 
ent ecclesiastical Connection, etc. The distribution of the Book and 
Chartered Fund is obviously intended to be a consequence and 
not a condition on which it is to depend. And the reference to 
the several Annual Conferences for a modification of the re- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



239 



strictive rule was evidently for the purpose of authorizing the 
intended distribution, and not of authorizing the separation. The 
slaveholding Conferences, referred to in the first resolution, are 
such as were wholly in the slaveholding States. And the del- 
egates from all these Conferences, assembled in convention, 
having declared the necessity of separation and erected an in- 
dependent ecclesiastical Connection, the prescribed condition 
has been complied with. 

As to the actual necessity for separation — that is, the exist- 
ence of such a state of things as justified it or rendered it prop- 
er — this, if it could ever have been a judicial question, is no 
longer so. It has been decided by the concurring judgment of 
the General Conference and the Southern or slaveholding 
Conferences, to which it was referred, and by the fact itself of 
an actual separation by agreement between the whole and the 
separating part, which is presumptively the strongest evidence 
of a high expediency, amounting to necessity. 

But the separation having, as we have seen, been effected 
by competent powers in the Church, and under the condition 
and in pursuance of the plan prescribed by the General Con- 
ference, its legality, in view of the civil tribunal, can be in no 
degree dependent upon the sufficiency in point of discretion or 
policy of the causes which led to it. It is sufficient that the 
Church, through its competent agents, has authorized the sep- 
arate organization and independent self-government of the 
Southern Conferences, and that they have so acted under the 
authority as to clothe their movement with the sanction of the 
Church. This being so, the Southern Church Stands not as a se- 
ceding or schismatic body, breaking off violently or illegally from 
the original Church, and carrying with it such numbers and 
such rights only as it may succeed in abstracting from the oth- 
er, but as a lawful ecclesiastical body, erected by the authority of the 
entire Church, tvith plenary jurisdiction over a designated fortio)i 
of the original Association, recognized by that Church as its prop- 
er successor and representative within its limits, commended 
as such to the confidence and obedience of all the members 
within those limits, and declared to be worthy of occupying to- 
ward them the place of the original Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and of taking its name. Such, though not the express 
language, is the plain and necessary import of the resolutions 



24O BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



in authorizing the formation of a Southern ecclesiastical Con- 
nection or Church, and prescribing a rule for ascertaining its 
limits, in leaving to the unmolested care of the anticipated 
Southern Church all the Societies, etc., within its limits, and 
stipulating that within these limits no new ones shall be organ- 
ized under the authority of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
in declaring that ministers may take their place in the South- 
ern Connection without blame, and in denominating the South- 
ern Church " the Church, South." The provision made for a 
ratable distribution of the funds of the Church, and the relin- 
quishment of all claim to the preaching houses, etc., within the 
limits of the Southern Connection, are of a similar character with 
the other features of the resolutions, and attest the equity and 
the magnanimity of the late General Conference. That body 
had, however, no proprietary interest in the preaching houses, 
and could only transfer its jurisdiction over them, which is 
done by the resolutions and the proceedings under them. 

The result is that the original Methodist Episcopal Church 
has been authoritatively divided into two Methodist Episcopal 
Churches, the one north and the other south of the common 
boundary line, which, according to the " Plan of Separation," 
limits the extent and jurisdiction of each; that each, within its 
own limits, is the lawful successor and representative of the 
original Church, possessing all its jurisdiction and entitled to 
its name; that neither has any more right to exceed those lim- 
its than the other; that the Southern Church, retaining the 
same faith, doctrine, and Discipline, and assuming the same or- 
ganization and name as the original Church, is not only a 
Methodist Episcopal Church, but is, in fact, to the South the 
Methodist Episcopal Church as truly as the other Church is so 
to the North, and is not the less so by the addition of the word 
" South " to designate its locality. The other Church, being by 
the plan of division, as certainly confined to the north as this Church 
is to the south of the dividifig line; is as truly the " Church North " 
as the Southern Church is the " Church South" The, difference 
in name makes no difference in character or authority. 

We call the special attention of the reader to the 
sentences which we have placed in Italic letters. 
Every principle for which we have contended is 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 24I 



here declared by the Supreme Court of the State 
of Kentucky to be sound in logic, and the South- 
ern position is fully vindicated by the highest civil 
authority in that State. 

This decision of the State Court related to the 
question of a local property, and while it certainly 
decided the issue, so far as the jurisdiction of the 
court was concerned, it could have only a moral 
effect upon the main question. How could the 
Southern Church secure her portion of the com- 
mon property of the whole Connection? The 
General Conference of 1848 forced this issue to be 
decided by the highest judicial authority in the 
United States, and it was so decided. The com- 
missioners on the part of the South brought suit in 
the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
Southern District of New York. Hon. D. Lord, 
Hon. Reverdy Johnson, and Mr. Johnson, Jr., 
were the attorneys for the South. Mr. Choate, of 
Massachusetts, and E. L. Fanchon, of New York, 
were attorneys for the North. After an argument 
of two days' duration, in which the whole case was 
presented with remarkable ability upon both sides, 
the presiding judges, Nelson and Betts, agreed 
upon the following advice, which was delivered by 
Judge Nelson, after conference with his colleague: 

Some time will probably elapse before the court will be able 
to take up this case and give it the examination which it will 
deserve and require at our hands, preparatory to a decision in 
the case. Our term business is pressing upon us, and, so far as 
I myself am concerned, I shall be compelled very soon after I 
leave this court to go into another, where I shall be engaged 

it 



242 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



until midsummer. My associate, I have no doubt, will be 
equally pressed in his particular department. Some time will 
necessarily elapse before we shall be in a condition to go into a 
consultation and examination of the case preparatory to a final 
decision. In the meantime we cannot resist the desire to ex- 
press our concurrence in the suggestions that have been made 
by the learned counsel on both sides, that it would be much 
better for the interests of this Church, for the interests of all 
concerned, if, after a full and fair investigation, both of the facts 
and the law of the case, the parties could amicably take it up, 
and, by the aid of friends and counsel, come to an amicable de- 
cision of the controversy. In the meantime, before the case is 
finally taken up and disposed of by the court, Ave cannot entertain 
any doubt that, after the full and fair investigation that has 
taken place of the controversy before us, whatever may be our 
final decision in the case, whether upon the one side or the 
other, an amicable, friendly adjustment of the controversy will 
be, and must necessarily be, more satisfactory to all parties con- 
cerned, and that the good feeling and Christian fellowship of 
the different sections of the Church will be much better by an 
amicable and friendly adjustment of this controversy than by 
any legal disposition of it by the court. 

We may also add, perhaps, that whatever may be, or may 
have been, the doubts entertained by the parties, or by their 
learned counsel, as it respects the power of the agents who have 
charge of the subject-matter of the controversy to make a final 
and legal disposition of this unfortunate controversy, there can 
probably be no reasonable doubt but that an amicable and 
equitable and honest adjustment made by the representatives 
of the different branches of the Church with the aid of their 
counsel, sanctioned by the court, would be a binding and valid 
and final disposition of the whole controversy. 

We have deemed it our duty to make these observations at 
the close of the argument, not only from the fact there will be 
necessarily some delay in the decision of the case, but in re- 
sponse to, and in sympathy with, the suggestions made by the 
learned counsel on both sides. (Church Property Case, p. 367.) 

What effect this advice may have had upon the 
Northern party, we are not able to say. It was a 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 243 



very distinct intimation of the opinion of the court; 
and if it did not produce the desired effect, it 
was not the fault of the judges, for their decision 
was foreshadowed with sufficient clearness. 

The ultimate result was the issuance of a decree 
in favor of the South. " On the 26th of Novem- 
ber, 1851," says Dr. A. H. Redford, in his " His- 
tory of the Organization of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South," 66 the United States Circuit 
Court for the Southern District of New r York 
caused the decree to be entered, ordering to be 
transferred to the Agents of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, their proportion of the prop- 
erty of the New York Book Concern, including 
both capital and property, and the clerk of the 
court was instructed to ascertain the amount and 
value of the property." 

Any reasonable person w T ould suppose that this 
decision was enough to settle the whole matter. 
So far from this being the case, however, the 
South was compelled to bring suit for her share of 
the Book Concern in Cincinnati. This suit was 
decided in Columbus, O., in the United States 
Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, Judge 
Leavitt presiding. In this court a decision was 
rendered in favor of the North, and the South ap- 
pealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
sitting in Washington City. 

Chief Justice Taney, Associate Justices Wayne, 
Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Greer, Curtis, and Camp- 
bell were on the bench. Justice McLean, a Meth- 



244 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



odist and a man of unimpeachable integrity, did not 
sit upon the case. His opinion was known to be 
favorable to the Southern claims, but motives of 
delicacy caused him to retire from the bench dur- 
ing the trial. 

On the 25th of April, 1854, Judge Nelson deliv- 
ered the decision of the court. There was no dis- 
senting opinion, and the unanimous voice of the 
highest tribunal in the nation was given in vindica- 
tion of the cause of the Southern Church. 

After a luminous statement of the whole ques- 
tion, the court said: 

Without pursuing the case farther, our conclusion is that the 
complainants, and those thej represent, are entitled to their 
share of the property in the Book Concern. And the proper 
decree will be entered to carry this decision into effect. 

The points decided by this court are so clearly 
stated that we copy them in full : 

William A. Smith and others vs. Leroy Swormstedt and 
others. (16 H. 288.) 

Upon a bill in equity by several traveling preachers of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in behalf of themselves 
and other traveling preachers of that organization, held 

1. That as numerous parties had a common interest in the 
fund in controversy, a few might sue, representing the others. 

2. That the General Conference, in 1844, had power to con- 
sent to the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two 
bodies, and that the separation was not a secession of a part of 
the traveling preachers from that Church, but a division, in 
pursuance of proper authority. 

3. That this division carried with it, as a matter of law, a 
division of the common property which belonged to the travel- 
ing preachers, as such. 

4. That the removal of the sixth restrictive article was not a 
condition to the enjoyment by the Church, South, of its share 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



245 



of the common fund, but to enable the General Conference to 
make the division. 

5. That as the complainants not only represent the other 
traveling preachers, South, but the " Book Concern " there, the 
share of the fund they thus represent may properly be paid to 
them. 

This was the unanimous opinion of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in 1854, against which 
we have the solemn judgment of Dr. Crooks in 
1891, affirming that it was a secession, a schism in 
1844, and not a division! 

The unenviable position of the biographer of 
Bishop Simpson may be necessary to the fulfill- 
ment of the task allotted to him, but the attitude 
is a very disagreeable one. To antagonize three 
millions and a half of Methodists in the South on a 
moral question, and to contradict the Supreme 
Court of the United States on a legal question as- 
suredly exhibits an amount of courage worthy of a 
better cause. 

Nevertheless the North was compelled to divide 
the common property, and Dr. Redford informs 
us that from these several sources we received 
over three hundred thousand dollars. From New 
York, $191,000; from Cincinnati, $93,000; and 
from the Chartered Fund $17,712.95. 

After ten years of desperate endeavors, truth and 
righteousness prevailed over the combined influ- 
ences that were arrayed against them. 



CHAPTER XII. 



Statistics of the Churches, 
e leave it to our readers to determine the 



V V question whether the proceedings of the 
General Conference of 1844 or those of 1848 most 
nearly resembled a ' ' rehearsal" of the events 
transpiring between 1861 and 1865. The body 
that endeavored to cut the legal ground from the 
status of the Southern Church, thereby subjecting 
Southern property to confiscation at the mere mercy 
of individual claimants, seems to be well repre- 
sented by the Episcopal camp followers that were 
ready to enter in and take possession of our prop- 
erty wherever the fortunes of war captured a 
coveted bit of territory. Points of analogy spring 
into apposite places on the bare mention of the 
presence of Bishop Simpson himself, exulting 
over the misfortunes of his former friends and 
associates, and benevolently assuming the respon- 
sibility of guardian in chief or administrator par- 
amount upon all the effects of Southern. Meth- 
odism. But these remembrances must give place 
to more profitable reminders of the grace of God 
bestowed upon the Churches of our " Sunny 
South." 

By every token that a gracious Providence could 
bestow upon us, the Methodist Episcopal Church, 




(246) 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



247 



South, has experienced the favor of God in the 
most rapid growth that has been known in the 
United States. Beginning in 18440 by a final set- 
tlement of the vexed questions that grew out of the 
institution of African slavery, the Southern Meth- 
odist Church has pursued her religious calling 
without the slightest interruption of internal peace 
and quietude. Her growth from 1844 to the pres- 
ent time verifies once more the aphorism of the 
illustrious Wesley: " The best of all is, God is 
with 11s." We have had many foes, some false 
friends, and slanderers and defamers without num- 
ber, but God has enlarged our borders, and to-day 
there is no portion of the globe in which Wesleyan 
Methodism has a firmer hold, occupies a larger 
sphere of influence in society, or combines great- 
er instrumentalities for development and progress 
than our Church possesses in these Southern States 
of the American Union. 

In 1845 the combined Church had 1,152,167 
communicants. The North retained 689,316, and 
the South 462,851. Of the combined membership, 
150,120 were colored people, bond and free. The 
South received 124,811 colored members, and 2,- 
978 Indian members. We are unable to ascer- 
tain the growth of the colored membership in the 
Church (North), for one of the immediate conse- 
quences of the division of the Church was the re- 
moval of the special column of " colored" mem- 
bers from the Northern Minutes. No member of 
that Church can do more than "estimate" the 



248 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



number of negroes in the Church (North). But 
the significant fact appears that the organization of 
the Southern Church was followed by a great en- 
largement of the work among the Southern ne- 
groes. Starting out with 124,811 in 1845, in i860 
there were 207,766 colored members, an increase 
of 66.45 per cent, in fifteen years, being a much 
greater increase than that of the white member- 
ship in either the Church, South, or the Church 
(North). 

Whatever inference may be drawn from the fact, 
we are prepared to prove that the number of South- 
ern slaves professing religion and belonging to the 
Church was greater in proportion to population, 
than the number of white people in all Churches, 
Protestant and Catholic, in the Northern States 
of the Union. Can any thing like this be said of 
any peasant population on the globe? Let it be 
remembered, too, that the 207,766 colored mem- 
bers were under the pastoral care of white pastors. 
Every Methodist preacher whose ministry was ex- 
ercised before the war was in part a pastor of ne- 
gro members, and many of them, the writer in- 
cluded, gave a special service every Sabbath to 
the slaves. Their religious life and culture formed 
an integral part of the duties of every Southern 
Methodist preacher. Two of our bishops — one 
our senior bishop, now living, and one but a little 
while ago translated to the eternal rest — were for 
the greater part of their ministry special pastors of 
slaves. Nor was this a work of drudgery, but one 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



249 



of peculiar delight and profit to the pastor. The 
heart of the writer grows warmer when he remem- 
bers the scenes witnessed in those days — master 
and servant communing at the same table, and 
from the same cup of blessing, and both full of 
" the joy that is inexpressible and full of glory ! " 

But if we measure the progress of the two 
Churches by the statistics alone, there appears to 
be but a slight difference between them up to i860. 
From 689,316 in 1845, the North grew to 994,447 
in i860, being an increase of 44.26 in fifteen years. 
From 462,851 in 1845, the South numbered 674,- 
103 in i860, an increase of 45.64. 

The war period was one of great disaster to all 
interests of the South, and not the least important 
was the effect upon the membership of the Church. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the four years from 
1861 to 1865 witnessed the most remarkable re- 
vival of religion that this country has ever seen, 
the subjects of grace were largely in the army, 
and thousands of them had their names recorded 
only in the Lamb's book of life. On the Church 
registers their names were never placed. The 
Southern armies were composed of the bone and 
sinew of our society, and hence the record of a bat- 
tle diminished every Church register within the im- 
mense territories of the South. 

In 1866, with the addition of 12,000 members who 
came to us from the old Baltimore Conference, we 
had only 419,464 white lay members, or 425,658, 
preachers — -itinerant and local — included. There 



25O BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



remained to us 78,742 colored members, but insid- 
ious influences were at work among the negroes. 
They were induced to regard their old masters as 
their enemies, and a new set of masters took pos- 
session of them. The negro's duty, in his changed 
relation, was to aid every instrumentality that could 
destroy the Southern Church. Hence, in two 
years' time, our negro members dwindled down to 
32,085, and two years after that, in 1870, a colored 
Church was formed, styled: " The Colored Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in America." This Church 
w r as organized by the Southern Methodist Church, 
our bishops ordaining the first colored bishops, and 
thus we have practiced upon the common sense 
principle which we advocated in 1844. 

It has happened that, in calculating our progress, 
those who never fail to do us an injustice, if they 
can, uniformly hold us responsible in our statistics 
for the 78,742 colored members of 1866. Our 
only answer to this is that we set apart all of our 
colored members in 1870, and they have now 
grown to 165,000, as nearly as we can ascertain 
their figures. But, as they did not form a perma- 
nent part of the Church, South, we shall not con- 
sider them in the record of statistics. There are 
now a little over 500 colored members in our 
Church. These are chiefly sextons or favorites 
of old families, who are loyal to the truth and the 
memories of olden times. 

Immediately after the war closed, notwithstand- 
ing the gloom and dejection in the political skies, 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 25 1 

the Southern Church was aroused to wonderful 
energy and progress. From 426,359 in 1866 we 
had grown to 512,984, Indians included, in 1868, 
an increase of 20.31 per cent, in two years. From 
that time to the present the Southern Methodist 
Church has increased nearly twice as fast as the 
ratio of increase in the population. What that 
means the well-informed statistician cannot fail to 
understand. 

A comparison of the two Churches from 1868 to 
1890 will be instructive. Let us examine the ter- 
ritory that the General Conference of 1848 con- 
tended for, in which they affirmed that great wrongs 
were perpetrated upon multitudes of people who 
desired to retain their membership in the Church 
(North). In Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, 
and Missouri the Church (North) had 33,671 mem- 
bers in i860. In the same territory the Church, 
South, had 145,828 members. Outside of West 
Virginia, where the Church (North) claimed pos- 
session under the " Plan of Separation," in fifteen 
years of hard labor the Church (North) had gained 
only 11,308, while we had 133,165 members in the 
same field. 

The war opened the door for the Church (North) 
in every Southern State. Under the protection of 
the flag, the work began, but the Southern people 
had no disposition to interfere with men who sim- 
ply desired to preach the gospel of Christ. With 
almost unlimited means, and every advantage that 
triumphant armies could bestow upon a conquering 



252 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



Church, the Northern "missionaries" have com- 
passed the land. Multitudes of negroes have 
swelled their Church registers, and the growth of 
their membership from i860 to 1868 was very great. 

From 994,447 in i860, the Church (North) grew 
to 1,263,586 in 1868, being 27.37 percent, in eight 
years. We select this year, 1868, as the period 
best adapted to our purpose as a beginning point 
of comparison. The growth of the Church, South, 
in two years, from 1866 to 1868, as we have seen, 
was 20.31 per cent. 

From 1,263,596 in 1868, the Church (North) has 
grown to 2,296,881 in 1890, an increase of 81.76 
per cent, in twenty-two years. In 1868, the Church, 
South, had 512,984 members, including Indians, 
and in 1890 we had 1, 21^,027, including Indian 
and excluding negro members in both dates. Here 
there is an increase of 137.43 per cent, in twenty- 
two years, an excess of 55.67 per cent, in favor of 
the Church, South! 

In these figures we have made no reference to 
the thousands of members in the missionary fields 
of either Church. The Church (North) has a 
large membership in Europe, where we have no 
members, and the mission fields of our Church are 
quite small, although growing, with good prospects 
of increase hereafter. 



CHAPTER XIII. 



The Future of Episcopal Methodism. 
That shall be said about organic union? We 



V V are prepared to give our reasons for the per- 
manence of the present status of the Church, South. 

1. Organic union would form a Church of 3,- 
515,442 members at this time. Without reference 
to the argument that such a body, under one juris- 
diction, would be a fearful element in the party 
politics of the time, we have many reasons for re- 
fusing to form such a union. We have no great 
estimate of the -political argument, as the divisions 
that now exist would still have their influence in 
the reunited Church. The ambition of individ- 
uals could not control the manhood of American 
•citizens, either North or South. 

2. But there is an argument in the magnitude 
of numbers, which renders representation almost 
impossible. Methodism knows but one lawmak- 
ing body, the General Conference. Under the 
restraints of a specific Constitution, the General 
Conference has power to legislate for the good of 
the Church. Beginning at one to five, representa- 
tion has dwindled down to one delegate for forty- 
five members of the Annual Conferences in the 
Church (North), and one to thirty-six members of 
the Annual Conferences in the Church, South. At 




(253) 



^54 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



the former, the least ratio, one in forty-five, there 
would probably be eight hundred members of a 
General Conference of the united Church meeting 
in 1896. One-half of that number is scarcely 
manageable, and scarcely possible, as a deliberating-* 
body. Thus the ratio would be reduced to one in 
ninety members, equivalent to no representation at 
all. Fundamental to our system, we do not see 
that any modification of the law of representation 
can be devised, by which the great ends of a 
Church organization can be attained. 

3. There are many reasons why the Church, 
South, should remain independent. There seems 
to be a constitutional infirmity somewhere that 
renders it impossible for the two sections to view 
the same facts in the same way. As we see the 
past, there is no -possible guarantee that can be 
given us, zvhereby zve can be secured against the 
repetition of the evils that divided the Church in 
1844, and involved us in a long, unprofitable con- 
trovers)^, in which neither side was likely to see 
the. argument of the other. 

4. We of the Church, South, are as nearly 
unanimous to-day as we were in 1844. We de- 
sire no prosperity that is purchased at the expense 
of our brethren in any section, but we claim to be 
the best judges as to the wants, the needs, and the 
prospects of our own people. We antagonize no 
party, no section, no great interest, by demanding 
the permanent possession of that which is our own 
by the gift of Providence. Rejoicing in the ad- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



255 



vancement of the Church (North) in all legitimate 
enterprises, we are content to allow the experi- 
ment of " disintegration and absorption " to go on, 
as it has been begun, feeling confident of the 
future, as we have been gratefully satisfied with 
the past. 

5. We are ready for the closest relations involved 
in any federal system that does not interfere with 
the jurisdiction of our General Conference. To 
us, alone, the question of representation is assum- 
ing grave importance: for, inasmuch as we have 
doubled our membership inside of sixteen years, a 
like period of prosperity might produce an un- 
wieldy General Conference, and serious blunders 
might result from immature legislation, or hasty 
measures adopted under the glamour of enthusiastic 
advocates. 

6. Speaking as an individual, the writer would 
prefer to see four grand divisions of Episcopal 
Methodism in America, the Eastern, Southern^ 
Western and the Colored General Conferences, 
the whole Church bound together by an advisory 
Council, representing Conference districts, and 
limited to the discussion of interests common to 
all, without authority over any. Such a federation 
we believe to be feasible and desirable. 

7. While we have the kindest feeling for every 
branch of the great Methodist family, we must ap- 
proximate nearest to the Church (North) because 
of our system of government, and we think that 
there is no reason why an itinerant preacher should 



256 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



not be transferred from one section to the other, 
under agreement of the bishops of both Churches, 
without submitting to the degrading process of 
withdrawing from one Church in order to join the 
other. The perfect independence of each Church 
is compatible with an arrangement by which, as an 
act of comity, mutual and reciprocal, such trans- 
fers could be made whenever demanded. 

8. But, for the present, and as far into the 
future as it has been given us to see, the interests 
and welfare of our Southern Methodism impera- 
tively demand the jurisdictional independence of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 



THE LAST WORD. 

The subject of the organic union of all the Epis- 
copal Methodist bodies possesses a charm for 
many persons. But there are so many difficulties 
in the way of such a consummation, that it is useless 
to discuss the question in any proposition that looks 
to the absorption of ecclesiastical government un- 
der one General Conference jurisdiction. 

There is, however, 

A MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 

Let there be one Methodist "Episcopal Church 
in America," under four General Conference ju- 
risdictions: 1. The Methodist Episcopal Church, 
North, comprising New England and the Central 
States to the Mississippi River. 2. The Metho- 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 257 

dist Episcopal Church, South, comprising the ter- 
ritory of the slaveholding States as they existed in 
i860, or, if preferred, the boundary established by 
the "Plan of Separation" in 1844. 3. The Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, West, comprising all the 
territory west of the Mississippi River and north 
of the Southern boundary. 4. The Colored Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, comprising : ( 1 ) the Afri- 
can Methodist Episcopal Church (Bethel); (2) 
the African Methodist Episcopal Church (Zion); 
and (3) the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church 
in America. These four divisions would be held 
in one Church organization by the nexus of a 
Methodist Church Council, meeting once in four 
years, and in the year succeeding one of the Gen- 
eral Conferences, so that there would be no con- 
flict as to the time of meeting, the Council and the 
Conference having its membership probably in the 
same persons. Let each General Conference ju- 
risdiction be divided into Council Districts, with 
one or two, probably two, a layman and a minister, 
from each district, and the membership of the 
Council confined to fifty or sixty persons. The 
General Conference of each jurisdiction to elect 
the members of the council. This council to have 
no legislative or judicial functions, but to be an 
advisory body only, considering such subjects as 
appertain to the general welfare of the Church. 
The name or title of the Church to be in common, 
and a common law of transfer of preachers from 
one jurisdiction to another, without blame or prej- 
17 



258 BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 



udice and subject only to the appointing power 
dismissing and receiving. 

In such a division of the jurisdictional powers of 
the four General Conferences there need be no 
structural or internal change in any one section of 
the Church, and any modification, alteration, or 
addition which may appear desirable, and may not 
be cho'sen in another, if adopted by any one will 
in nowise change, abridge, or injuriously affect 
the rights of any other. Territorial sovereignty 
would inhere in the General Conference, and one 
General Conference could have no legislative au- 
thority over another. 

This plan would make us one Church, with 
more than four and a half millions of communi- 
cants at the present time, each branch numbering 
nearly the membership of the Southern Church in 
1890, and with room provided for fourfold expan- 
sion. 

The partition of territory and members would 
be met with objections, more or less vigorous, ac- 
cording to circumstances. But there need be no 
violent displacements. Natural laws could safely 
be left to work changes of adaptation, and the in- 
stitutions of learning or other enterprises now un- 
der the care of the" Church (North) could be con- 
tinued until such time as all parties were ready for 
a transfer to the Church, South. The Southern 
States are poor, the Northern States rich, but the 
balance of wealth will not always remain North. 
Nature has made the South the richest section of 



BISHOP SIMPSON AS A POLITICIAN. 259. 



the Union, and as there is no longer a question 
about the reality of this natural wealth, the prog- 
ress of the South will be more rapid in the next 
ten years than ever before. The soils worn out 
will be redeemed, the manufacture of cotton will 
be chiefly in the sight of the cotton fields, and 
more than half of the product of iron mines in 
America will come from the South. Temperature, 
soil, minerals (great facts of nature) will overrule 
all other considerations, and the homogeneous char- 
acter of our population will render every step 
taken in advance a permanent step providing for 
another. 



Finis. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 010 531 



